Welsh Parliament Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill: Responses to the Consultation November 2025
This document contains the responses to the public consultation on the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill, which was open from 29 September to 17 October 2025.

 

Contents

The following consultees provided written evidence to the Committee. All consultation responses can be viewed on the Committee’s website.

* Saesneg yn unig | English only

** Cymraeg yn unig | Welsh only

Rhif | Number

Sefydliad

Organisation

PGRWB01*

Premier Greyhound Racing

Premier Greyhound Racing

PGRWB02*

Y Gynghrair Cefn Gwlad Cymru

Countryside Alliance Wales

PGRWB03*

GREY2K USA Worldwide

GREY2K USA Worldwide

PGRWB04*

Alison Littlejohn

Alison Littlejohn

PGRWB05*

Les Penry

Les Penry

PGRWB06*

Dianne Lewis

Dianne Lewis

PGRWB07*

Robert Williams

Robert Williams

PGRWB08*

Christine Evans

Christine Evans

PGRWB09*

Jane Hurley

Jane Hurley

PGRWB10*

Dr Huw Jones Jenkins

Dr Huw Jones Jenkins

PGRWB11*

Cut the Chase Coalition

Cut the Chase Coalition

PGRWB12*

Manuela Vogler

Manuela Vogler

PGRWB13*

Y Cyngor Betio a Hapchwarae

Betting and Gaming Council

PGRWB14*

Unigolyn

Individual

PGRWB15*

Lorraine Czaja

Lorraine Czaja

PGRWB16*

Ken Needham

Ken Needham

PGRWB17*

Ruth Joseph

Ruth Joseph

PGRWB18*

Alain Thomas

Alain Thomas

PGRWB19*

Jenny Lloyd

Jenny Lloyd

PGRWB20*

Y Kennel Club

The Kennel Club

PGRWB21*

Angela Shearing

Angela Shearing

PGRWB22*

Mike Doughty

Mike Doughty

PGRWB23*

Melanie Jenkins

Melanie Jenkins

PGRWB24*

Linda Leeves

Linda Leeves

PGRWB25*

Sheila Andersen

Sheila Andersen

PGRWB26*

SPCA Seland Newydd

SPCA New Zealand

PGRWB27*

Arena Racing Company

Arena Racing Company

PGRWB28*

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

PGRWB29*

Y Gynghrair yn Erbyn Chwaraeon Creulon

League Against Cruel Sports

 

 

PGRWB 01 Premier Greyhound Racing

Ymateb gan | Response from: Premier Greyhound Racing

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

Premier Greyhound Racing (PGR) manages media rights for Greyhound Racing in the United Kingdom. PGR and its 12 affiliated tracks, operate under Greyhound Board of Great Britain rules and licensing.

The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill makes it an offence to operate a stadium or similar venue in Wales and use it, or knowingly permit it to be used, for greyhound racing. The Bill also makes it an offence to be involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales. “Greyhound racing” is defined as setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means and includes timing or training a greyhound as it runs around a track.

The stated policy intention of the Bill is simply to ban greyhound racing in Wales. Whilst the proposed legislation may deliver this objective, Members of the Senedd should be clear that the policy intention and the general principles of the Bill, which focus exclusively on banning greyhound racing, will be detrimental to greyhound welfare. The Bill offers nothing which will promote meeting greyhounds’ welfare needs across their lifetimes – needs which are met, across the Five Domains of animal welfare, through evidence-based policy making and effective enforcement when greyhound racing is regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) rather than banned.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The stated policy intention is to ban greyhound racing. The Bill offers nothing which will promote meeting greyhounds’ welfare needs across their lifetimes. That makes it explicitly clear that the Bill is not a serious piece of animal welfare legislation but is instead based in animal rights views. Greyhound welfare is best protected when racing occurs in a public space with societal scrutiny and where regulation provides enforceable mechanisms of optimising greyhound welfare for the entirety of the dogs’ lifespan, across the five physical and psychological domains. Greyhound welfare is least well protected when the sport is banned because that runs the risk of greyhound racing occurring illegally, out of public view, with no regulation. Currently, there is only one operational greyhound track in Wales, which is licensed by GBGB. The Bill to ban greyhound racing will inevitably put greyhound welfare at higher risk than it currently is in Wales because it will result in the cessation of greyhound welfare safeguarding through regulation by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. This regulation, through the GBGB’s Welfare Strategy, combined with GBGB Rules of Racing and evidence-based policies and guidance currently protects the welfare of racing greyhounds for the entirety of their lifespan and across all five physical and psychological Domains of animal welfare.

Some brief examples of the ways in which greyhound welfare is safeguarded through GBGB regulation are provided below at the end of our response to this question. As those examples illustrate, GBGB regulation demands welfare standards which demonstrably provide racing greyhounds with ‘good lives’, as defined in animal welfare science (please refer to GBGB’s short- and medium- term reports on its Welfare Strategy). If the Welsh government is truly committed to improving animal welfare (rather than to meeting the demands of animal rights organisations) then instead of introducing this Bill to meet a very narrow, animal rights-based policy intention of banning greyhound racing it would legislate instead to safeguard animal welfare by maintaining greyhound racing as a legal activity and insisting that in future all greyhound racing in Wales be regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

Brief examples of the ways in which greyhound welfare is safeguarded through GBGB regulation:

As regulator, GBGB ensures that the welfare of racing greyhounds is of paramount importance within licensed racing. Through our Greyhound Commitment and over 200 Rules of Racing, GBGB seeks to ensure that the health and wellbeing of all registered greyhounds are promoted and protected at all times.

Importantly, GBGB has a zero-tolerance approach to any mistreatment of greyhounds and does not hesitate to take the strongest action against any form of animal mistreatment. Through their investigations team, they explore any concerns regarding welfare and integrity. They follow a strict disciplinary process to address any breaches of the Rules of Racing, which is overseen by an independent disciplinary panel. GBGB is prepared to impose the necessary sanctions including a lifetime ban from the sport.

As an indication of their high welfare standards, GBGB is the only UK sports regulator to be accredited by UKAS. This UKAS standard, which covers both licensed tracks and greyhound trainers’ residential kennels, exists alongside the BSI PAS 251:2017 technical specification and GBGB’s Code of Practice for Residential Kennels.

In 2022, GBGB launched its long-term welfare strategy, A Good Life for Every Greyhound, which seeks to enhance the welfare standards across the sport. Developed under the leadership of Professor Madeleine Campbell, who is an EBVS® European Veterinary Specialist and RCVS Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, this comprehensive and wide-ranging strategy seeks to further optimise the care and protection registered racing greyhounds receive throughout their lives – not just the period they are racing. The strategy has been externally peer-reviewed by respected veterinarians in the field of animal welfare. They provide regular updates on progress to the Greyhound Forum which includes representatives from key animal welfare charities such as Battersea Cats and Dogs Home, The Kennel Club and the Greyhound Trust.

Through their Rules of Racing and our welfare strategy, welfare standards and protections afforded to racing greyhounds far exceed those that exist for the pet dog population where there is no monitoring in place to demonstrate welfare standards.

In practice, this means:

Breeding

·         Whilst GBGB’s regulatory remit does not extend to the breeding and rearing of greyhound pups in Britain, GBGB believes it shares responsibility to ensure that all racing greyhounds have the best possible start to their lives. Through the welfare strategy, GBGB committed to furthering its support of high-welfare British breeding.

·         In 2024, 15.5% of the greyhounds registered with GBGB were from British-bred litters (up from 13.1% in 2021), with the remainder originating from either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. The overall number of Irish greyhounds entering racing in Britain has decreased by 26% since 2021. These changes are in alignment with GBGB’s welfare strategy which sought to increase the number of British-bred greyhounds and minimise the potential welfare and biosecurity risks associated with international transportation of greyhounds. GBGB continues to work closely with Greyhound Racing Ireland (GRI) to ensure the traceability of greyhounds entering GBGB racing from Ireland or returning to Ireland for racing or breeding.

·         In August 2025, GBGB announced that it is developing a registration system for British-bred greyhounds. This move is intended to streamline the process, support British breeding and ensure greater oversight by GBGB from a greyhound’s birth.

·         GBGB provides education opportunities on breeding and rearing, including a recent live webinar series delivered by Professor Gary England, a leading expert in canine reproduction.

·         GBGB will shortly be publishing a new comprehensive Code of Practice for Breeders and Rearers of Racing Greyhounds, informed by research field visits to established greyhound breeders and rearers and developed with expert welfare and veterinary input. This will provide advice and guidance for raising healthy and well-socialised greyhounds and will be shared with our international regulator colleagues to promote best practice.

During their racing career – at the track

·         Under the Rules of Racing, the vehicles trainers use to transport their greyhounds to and from the track must be adequately air-conditioned; since June 2021, when it became a requirement for vehicles to be air-conditioned, over £2 million has been spent within the industry on replacement vehicles or upgrading existing air-conditioning units.

·         There must be at least one veterinary surgeon in attendance at GBGB-licensed racecourses for any races or trials. Their role is to check each greyhound before, during and after they race, monitor disease control and administer emergency care in the event that this becomes necessary.

·         GBGB-licensed racecourses benefit from GBGB’s multi-year collaboration with internationally recognised experts STRI. Each stadium receives four STRI inspections a year which allows experts to assess the track in all seasons. Through these regular visits, STRI consultants make recommendations designed to optimise the safety of the running surface. In 2024, STRI conducted 80 visits to GBGB-licensed racecourses.

·         GBGB also has a national Track Liaison Officer who provides assistance to track staff and makes regular visits to stadia during the year.

·         Track staff have access to a regular programme of continuing professional development which covers track preparation and maintenance as well as how to care for greyhounds whilst at the track.

·         In 2024, GBGB published its Track Maintenance Guide – a substantial resource developed through a collaboration between Dr Christian Spring, Group Principal Scientist for STRI, GBGB’s Track Liaison Officer and the GBGB Track sub-committee. The Guide provides an invaluable continuing education and reference resource for all racecourse stakeholders. Importantly, it not only provides clear guidance on all stages of the track maintenance process – construction and layout, infrastructure, preparation and troubleshooting – but also provides information on where stakeholders can seek expert help and emphasises the need for an evidence-based, scientifically informed and flexible, proactive approach.

·         The continuous improvements in track safety and the provision of veterinary treatment at the track have led to significant improvements in the track injury and fatality rates. Most notably, between 2018 and 2024, the track fatality rate decreased by 50%, from 0.06% to 0.03% and in 2024, licensed racing saw its lowest ever injury rate of 1.07% – down from 1.21% in 2021. It is important to note that, according to the British Horseracing Authority’s own data, the fatality rate in British horseracing (including flat and jump racing) is noticeably higher at 0.25%.

·         GBGB meticulously and accurately records all injuries sustained at licensed tracks – going beyond what has been requested by Defra. Not only does this show GBGB’s commitment to transparency and accountability it also allows our Track Liaison Officer and Track Safety Committee to identify any concerning trends and take immediate action to prevent any further injuries.

·         If a greyhound sustains a career-ending injury on a licensed track, they are eligible for financial assistance through our Injury Retirement Scheme (IRS). Through the IRS, funding is provided towards corrective veterinary treatment for orthopaedic injuries so that, wherever possible, greyhounds can go on to enjoy a full and active life in retirement. Since the scheme was introduced in 2018, GBGB has paid out over £1.4 million to support the veterinary treatment of registered greyhounds. Many stadia also offer their own injury retirement schemes to ensure all greyhounds receive whatever veterinary treatment they require and this will shortly become a requirement for all stadia under the Rules of Racing. As a result of the IRS, GBGB has seen a dramatic fall in the number of greyhounds put to sleep for economic reasons following an injury sustained while racing. This figure has fallen from 175 in 2018 to just three in 2024 – a decrease of 98%. GBGB believes that it is unacceptable for a dog to sleep for economic reasons and remains committed to reducing this number to zero.

·         To see further improvements in this area, PGR is currently funding two academic research projects at the University of Nottingham specifically looking at injury prevention. These projects are looking at the causes of injuries in racing greyhounds and how modern technologies could be used to help detect sub-clinical injuries and inform decisions about early treatment and rest.

·         Each GBGB-licensed racecourse is subject to annual inspections as part of GBGB’s wider regulatory programme. Stadia also receive regular visits throughout the year from GBGB’s Stipendiary Stewards.

·         Each racecourse has access to GBGB’s Track Safety Committee Fund which funds investments into track equipment and safety infrastructure. In 2024, grants totalling £168,000 were issued for equipment and infrastructure improvements.

·         Tracks must adhere to GBGB’s Hot and Cold Weather Policies, which seek to optimise the comfort and wellbeing of greyhounds during periods of very hot or very cold weather. Within the policies, which are reviewed annually, GBGB has set out at which temperatures racing must be cancelled. These limits are based on the latest veterinary advice on maintaining a greyhound’s thermo-neutral zone of between 10°C and 26°C. The policies also set out the measures that must be taken to keep greyhounds comfortable at the track (e.g. cooling baths, reducing parade times) and when travelling to and from it.

·         To safeguard greyhound welfare and the integrity of the sport, thousands of regulatory samples are taken each year to ensure that greyhound racing is a drug-free sport. Working alongside LGC, a world-leading independent drug surveillance laboratory, and other international regulators, GBGB has developed an effective and modern testing and intelligence programme which acts as a deterrent against the use of prohibited substances. Since 2017, all greyhounds registered by GBGB must have a ‘Point of Registration’ sample to ensure that each greyhound begins its GBGB career free of any long-acting prohibited substances, whilst a mixture of random or intelligence-led race day samples are taken throughout the year across all racecourses.

During their racing career – at their trainers’ kennels

·         Each year, licensed trainers’ residential kennels must receive:

o   A veterinary inspection which examines all aspects of the greyhounds’ care, health and wellbeing;

o   An audit by independent auditors SCI to ensure they meet the standards required by the British Standards Institute’s (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) for greyhound trainers’ residential kennels – PAS 251: 2017.

·         All trainers also receive separate visits to their residential kennels during the year from GBGB Stipendiary Stewards and GBGB Regional Regulatory Vets (RRVs).

·         In January 2025, GBGB’s team of RRVs began conducting their trainers’ Annual Veterinary Kennel Inspection, which was previously carried out by either a veterinarian from the trainer’s local practice or a track veterinarian. The new RRV annual veterinary kennel inspections are in a more thorough format than previously used and include, for example, an inspection of every greyhound accommodated within the kennels – whether or not they are actively racing.

·         Since the launch of the welfare strategy in 2022, there has been a 73.2% increase in the total number of routine GBGB visits to residential kennels. In 2024, on average, each licensed trainer received three visits to their kennels by GBGB field staff as well as an audit inspection by SCI and an external veterinary kennel inspection. In addition to routine visits, GBGB carries out risk-led more frequent monitoring visits of specific kennels if it is deemed necessary.

·         Any failures of compliance with the UKAS accredited standards result in improvement notices, and failure to make required improvements means that a trainer does not have their GBGB licence renewed.

·         Licensed trainers have access to the Trainers’ Assistance Fund, which provides grants for trainers to upgrade and improve their residential kennel facilities. In 2024, £503,910 was awarded via the Trainers’ Assistance Fund for trainers to upgrade their kennel and paddock facilities.

·         In 2020, GBGB introduced – in consultation with animal welfare charities and veterinary professionals – a comprehensive Code of Practice for Residential Kennels which sets out clear rules and guidelines on how greyhounds should be looked after at their trainer’s kennels. This includes specific requirements around diet, bedding, kennel construction and size, dental care, environmental enrichment as well as daily exercise routines.

·         Licensed trainers have access to continuous professional development, which leverages the latest in scientific research and innovations, in the form of a regular programme of workshops and webinars involving leading veterinarians and academics, including on nutrition and understanding kennel sickness. To maximise engagement, these courses are delivered free of charge. Trainers also benefit from the support and expertise of GBGB’s Executive Veterinarian and a team of RRVs who are available to give advice and guidance on any aspect of greyhound welfare as required.

Into Retirement

·         GBGB has full traceability of every racing greyhound throughout their careers. Upon a greyhound’s eventual retirement, all greyhound owners must adhere to GBGB’s Responsible Homing Policy and inform GBGB of the retirement destination of their greyhound. The microchip of retired greyhounds is registered in a pet canine database, ensuring that traceability is maintained after greyhounds retire from racing.

·         Through the Greyhound Retirement Scheme (GRS), GBGB ensures that the financial costs associated with a greyhound’s eventual retirement are secure before their racing career even begins. At the point of a racing greyhound’s registration with GBGB, the owner must pay £210 towards the GRS Bond. This sum is kept and then matched by GBGB when the greyhound enters an approved homing centre. This creates a £420 bond which will help to cover the costs of a greyhound’s stay in a homing centre whilst they await their forever home.

·         Since the launch of the GRS in 2020, almost £6 million has been paid in matched funding to GBGB’s network of over 100 approved homing centres.

·         In 2024, GBGB strengthened its follow-up procedures to check that retired greyhounds are settling well into their new placements. All greyhounds homed privately now receive multiple follow-up communications from GBGB at two, six and twelve months after welcoming their greyhound into their home.

·         To enhance the welfare of those greyhounds remaining at their trainers’ residential kennels while they await homing, with input from the Greyhound Forum, GBGB developed a Guide to Enhancing the Welfare of Retired Greyhounds in Residential Kennels. These greyhounds also receive visits from GBGB’s Regional Regulatory Vets who have a specific responsibility to check on their welfare.

·         GBGB’s regulatory remit means it has no legal powers to stop a greyhound being exported once they have retired. Nonetheless, GBGB has worked to strengthen the systems and enforcement which it is able to use to safeguard the welfare of greyhounds during exportation. In January 2025, new stakeholder guidance around the export of retired greyhounds outside of Great Britain was issued. This was accompanied by the introduction of a new procedure whereby owners must inform GBGB before the greyhound’s movement abroad using a newly developed form and review system to ensure the necessary due diligence has been carried out regarding the ongoing care of their greyhound. Since the process began, the majority of applications have been submitted for greyhounds to retire with an existing racing owner, or a new private owner who lives abroad and GBGB has been satisfied that the required due diligence has been carried out.

·         In most cases, greyhounds retiring from the sport go on to make excellent pets and can transition successfully from a kennel environment to life in a domestic setting. As part of the strategy, Dr Sarah Heath FRCVS, an RCVS and European Veterinary Specialist in Behavioural Medicine, has been providing educational opportunities about how this can best be done for national and international stakeholders within the sport of greyhound racing. GBGB already supports trainers to enlist the assistance of specialist homing centres who can offer help with these individual greyhounds, but to further this, GBGB is working with Dr Heath to develop a standardised behavioural assessment for racing greyhounds to ensure these greyhounds are given the correct support.

·         As a result of these measures, licensed racing has seen the successful retirement rate improve from 88% in 2018 to 94% in 2024. This is a significant improvement particularly in the context of the current rehoming crisis affected all breeds of dog.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The Bill is intended to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales. Under Section (1) of the Bill a person commits an offence if he/she/they ‘(a) is an operator of a stadium or similar venue in Wales and uses it, or knowingly permits it to be used, for greyhound racing, or (b) is involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales’.

As detailed in our answers to Q1 and Q2, the provisions of Section 1 of the Bill will inevitably put greyhound welfare at higher risk than it currently is in Wales, because it will result in the cessation of greyhound welfare safeguarding currently provided for the entirety of a greyhound’s lifetime through regulation by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

Under Section 2 of the Bill, ‘“Greyhound racing” means setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means (and this includes timing or training a greyhound as it runs around a track)’.

Section 2 of the Bill will be detrimental to greyhound welfare by increasing the distances which greyhounds have to be transported for training and racing and/or increasing the risk of injury for greyhounds.

There are currently 21 greyhound trainers licensed by GBGB based in Wales. Should the Bill be passed and greyhound racing be banned in Wales those trainers will likely maintain their premises in Wales and continue training but have to take their dogs to England to compete. This will inevitably increase the distances which greyhounds need to travel to race. Since any transportation of animals always results in some stress, however optimal the conditions under which they are transported, this will have a detrimental effect on greyhound welfare.

Training racing greyhounds on a track is an important part of teaching them to navigate a race as safely as possible and thus reduce the risk of injury. Since Section 2 not only bans greyhound racing but also bans timing or training a greyhound around a track, it will either (i) have a detrimental, transport-stress related effect on greyhound welfare by making it necessary for trainers to transport their dogs to England to reduce the risk of injury through familiarising them with running on a track before they race, and / or (ii) have a detrimental effect on greyhound welfare by increasing the risk of injury if Welsh greyhound trainers do not wish to increase the stress on their greyhounds by transporting their greyhounds for training, and are unable to train them on a track in Wales.

Section 3 of the Bill relates to Offences by bodies corporate etc. PGR does not have any comments on Section 3.

Schedule 1 of the Bill relates to Offences by bodies corporate etc. PGR does not have any comments on Schedule 1.

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

We note that Section 9(h) of Schedule 2 of the Bill prohibits Inspectors exercising a power of entry from seizing a dog. PGR does not support the Bill and believes that the Bill will be detrimental to greyhound welfare for the reasons explained in our responses to Q1-3. However, this prohibition on Inspectors seizing a dog is to be commended in relation to protecting greyhound welfare should the Bill (unfortunately) become law and in a situation where enforcement of the Bill were being attempted.

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Section 5 determines that ‘the […] provisions of this Act (other than Sections 5 and 6) come into force on a day appointed by the Welsh Ministers in an order made by Welsh statutory instrument, but they must be brought into force on a day that is— (a) no sooner than 1 April 2027, and (b) no later than 1 April 2030’.

If The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Billbecomes law then as soon as it became known that the sport of greyhound racing had no future, promoters, stadia, owners, trainers and breeders would immediately exit the sport. This would cause a huge number of greyhounds to simultaneously need homing. As the British Veterinary Association (BVA) stated in its response to the Welsh Government’s consultation on the licensing of animal welfare establishments (page 63) this would have negative impacts on the welfare of huge numbers of animals. Since the announcement of the intention to ban greyhound racing in Wales the BVA has reiterated its concern about the lack of planning by Welsh Government for homing of greyhounds who will exit racing as a result of the ban (for example, https://www.vettimes.com/news/vets/small-animal-vets/greyhound-race-ban-needs-robust-transition-bva-says-after-bill-draft ). GBGB and PGR shares the concerns of the BVA and believes that the bringing into force of the provisions of this Bill, should it be enacted, will be detrimental to the welfare of greyhounds and of the wider canine population by flooding rehoming centres at a time when the number of homes being offered to dogs of all breeds in such centres is already significantly reduced due to the cost of living crisis. Those charities who are supporting a ban on greyhound racing in Wales and currently insisting that they will assist with homing the large number of greyhounds who would abruptly exit racing should this Bill become law are simultaneously reporting that their homing centres are already at full capacity in Wales and England (for example, https://www.deeside.com/rspca-warns-of-dog-rehoming-crisis-in-wales/ https://nation.cymru/feature/adopt-dont-shop-welsh-rescue-centres-facing-unprecedented-number-of-dogs-waiting-for-homes/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c930qg9xv9no

https://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/25442589.rspca-hertfordshire-dealing-record-number-dogs/)

In contrast to this situation at homing centres run by charities, adoptions from GBGB Greyhound Retirement Scheme centres in the first 6 months of 2025 were increased by 37% compared to the same period in 2024. At the same time, the number of greyhounds being registered with the GBGB is at an all-time low, reflecting the sport’s determination to continue moving to a sustainable position where the number of greyhounds entering racing is no greater than the number to whom homes are offered upon retirement. The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and Section 5 in particular will be detrimental to greyhound welfare since it will disrupt the move towards a racing:homing equilibrium by dramatically and suddenly increasing the numbers of greyhounds needing homes. In so doing will cause a very large number of greyhounds to have to wait prolonged periods to find a retirement home, and possibly even to enter homing centres to begin with. It might also reduce the number of places in rehoming centres and of private homes being offered to dogs of non-greyhound breeds.

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

The Bill completely fails to account in any way for meeting the welfare needs of greyhounds across their lifetimes, and specifically fails to account for how the welfare of the very many greyhounds who would abruptly exit racing should this Bill become law will be protected.

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)?

We have no view on Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

As explained in our answers to Q1-3 and 5, the policy intention and the Bill, which focus exclusively on banning greyhound racing, will be detrimental to greyhound welfare. Banning greyhound racing in Wales will result in the loss of the comprehensive protection of greyhound welfare across greyhounds’ lifetimes which is currently provided through regulation (including effective enforcement) by the GBGB (and detailed in our responses to Q1-3).

The Bill, should it be enacted, will have an additional and significant adverse effect on greyhound welfare by flooding canine rehoming centres which (by their own admission) are already at full capacity in Wales and England with a very large number of greyhounds who would all exit racing simultaneously. This will cause a very large number of greyhounds to have to wait prolonged periods to find a retirement home and possibly even to enter homing centres to begin with. It might also reduce the number of places in rehoming centres and of private homes being offered to dogs of non-greyhound breeds.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

It is the view of GBGB and PGR that the Welsh Government have not carried out the necessary collaborative working with the members of their Implementation Group for the Bill. Valley Greyhound Stadium and Sports Information Services (SIS), both of which are represented on the Implementation Group, would have been able to articulate their respective costs implications of the Bill had they been effectively consulted on this matter.

85 individuals are directly or indirectly employed as a result of the Valley, with the majority looking to lose their source of employment and income. These include the trainers, of which there are 21 GBGB-licence-holders based in Wales, as well as kennel hands, maintenance, camera and hospitality staff.

SIS Limited alone, assess the economic loss of a minimum of £15 million over the next five years.

Detailed in the Economic Impact of Greyhound Racing in the UK (2022) report, UK-wide owners of greyhounds contributed £24.2 million annually into the sport, which would be circa £1.27 million on an individual track basis.

This is to say nothing of the cultural, social and community benefits brought by the Valley Stadium, nor of the historic role that greyhound racing has played as a rural activity in traditionally underserved areas.

Under Cost Savings, the Welsh Government details that by banning greyhound racing, there would be a cost saving of £11,000 per year by not having to correspond with persons calling for a ban. It would be PGR and GBGB’s strong contention that increased correspondence for bans on other sports and activities involving animals would likely follow a ban on greyhound racing, as animal rights groups adjusted the focus of their demands.

In contrast, if the Welsh Government were to decide that all greyhound racing in Wales in future had to be regulated by GBGB, implementing those higher welfare standards would be at no cost to the government. As regulator for British licensed greyhound racing, GBGB has put in place and enforces a regulatory system that goes far beyond what is required under the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 which apply in England. Our regulatory and licensing regime offers a proven option for safeguarding the welfare of racing greyhounds in Wales, without any need for additional legislation or extra resource from Welsh public services.

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

GBGB and PGR believes that this Bill will be extremely detrimental to greyhound welfare. We urge the Welsh Government and Senedd to demonstrate a genuine commitment to animal welfare rather than to animal rights and to withdraw this Bill and legislate instead to safeguard animal welfare by maintaining greyhound racing as a legal activity and insisting that in future all greyhound racing in Wales be regulated by the GBGB. Implementing higher welfare standards through such legislation would (unlike the proposed legislation to ban greyhound racing, which will anyway be detrimental to greyhound welfare) be at no cost to the government. As regulator for British licensed greyhound racing, GBGB has put in place and enforces a regulatory system that goes far beyond what is required under the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 which apply in England. Our regulatory and licensing regime offers a proven option for safeguarding the welfare of racing greyhounds in Wales, without any need for additional legislation or extra resource from Welsh public services.

Whilst the GBGB and PGR fully respects the devolved nature of animal welfare policy and legislation and the autonomy of the Welsh Government, we respectfully note here the support for optimising greyhound welfare through regulation rather than through banning greyhound racing being shown by the Westminster Government. That government has confirmed its support for licensed greyhound racing and indicated its satisfaction with the current regulations that are in place. On 27 February 2025, the Secretary of State of Culture, Media and Sport told the House of Commons:

“We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.”

This followed a statement by Daniel Zeichner MP, the then Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 9 October 2024:

“The welfare of greyhounds in England is protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The 2006 Act allows action to be taken where there is evidence of cruelty to an animal or a failure to provide for that animal’s welfare needs. This includes where greyhounds are raced at greyhound racing tracks, kept at trainers’ kennels, or kept elsewhere as pets, for example.

“Further to these general provisions, specific welfare standards at all greyhound racing tracks in England are laid out in the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. Requirements in the 2010 Regulations include having a veterinary surgeon in attendance while dogs are running (with all greyhounds inspected by the vet before being allowed to run); requiring all greyhounds to be microchipped and earmarked before they can race or trial; and requiring records to be kept by the track of all dogs run or trialled at the track and any dogs injured.

“Standards in the 2010 Regulations are enforced by either the track’s local authority or the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB). The role of the GBGB as a regulator of these standards is independently scrutinised by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

“In addition to its role as an industry regulator, GBGB has also undertaken a number of welfare reforms, including publishing a long term, national welfare strategy in May 2022 – ‘A Good Life for Every Greyhound’. The strategy focuses not only on reducing risks of injury but also developing and implementing new management practices to improve the welfare of greyhounds throughout their lives, including after they have finished racing. The Government is monitoring GBGB’s progress in delivering the strategy and should further measures and protections be required the Government will, of course, consider options which are targeted, effective, and proportionate.”

Reports against the short- and medium-term objectives of the GBGB’s Welfare Strategy can be found here: https://gbgb-prod-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/08140710/A-Good-Life-for-Every-Greyhound-Progress-Report-October-2025.pdfand here: https://gbgb-prod-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/10101528/Delivering-A-Good-Life-for-Every-Greyhound-Progress-Report-Dec-2024.pdf).

 

PGRWB 02 Countryside Alliance Wales

Ymateb gan: Y Gynghrair Cefn Gwlad Cymru | Response from: Countryside Alliance Wales

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

The stated policy intention is to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales which can only be achieved through primary legislation. We would note that the offences created by the Bill would not only prohibit the racing of greyhounds around a track but would also seem to restrict the way in which greyhounds can be trained in Wales to race elsewhere.

We do not believe that a ban is the best way to ensure the future of racing greyhounds and is based more on an ethical argument than evidence that properly regulated greyhound racing cannot be conducted in a way which minimises welfare concerns. Clearly, the risk of injury where animals are involved cannot be entirely excluded. This is also true for pet owners exercising dogs or working dogs in connection with farming, shooting or pest control. The arguments advance here in favour of banning instead of regulation would apply equally to horse racing, dog racing, catch and release angling etc.

We would also note that wider welfare concerns raised around greyhounds such as kennelling, breeding etc are already covered by extensive law as the documents accompanying the Bill acknowledge. This includes the five freedoms set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which include an animal’s “need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns”. As the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing in Scottland points out: the pursuit phase of the race is associated with positive emotional states in dogs, and many dogs engage in chase and pursuit of moving objects suggesting it is a highly motivated behaviour for dogs. They also noted that the anticipation shown by greyhounds before a race suggests “that greyhounds do enjoy running and chasing ‘prey’ (the lure)”. Simply to ban the activity in Wales not only prevents activities where there are positive welfare benefits for greyhounds, recognising that risk of injury should always be minimised, but in doing so is actually detrimental to welfare. We do not ban sporting activities because a person risks injury, we ensure that the activity is undertaken to minimise risk of harm, recognising a balance is struck between risk and benefit to the individual.

Ironically, the ban will do little beyond increasing the distances greyhounds will have to travel to train and compete. The fundamental problem is that the policy objective is a ban based on ideological/questionable ethical arguments and not the welfare of greyhounds properly understood.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether  defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

If the purpose is to ban greyhound racing in Wales, then the Bill will achieve that. However, it will also make unlawful aspects of training greyhounds. It is stated that a ban will protect the welfare of racing greyhounds, but it goes without saying that if there are no racing greyhounds then there are no racing greyhounds to protect. Once again there is extensive welfare legislation covering all aspects of dog welfare that already apply at every stage of life and these apply to greyhounds used for racing as they do to any other domestic dog. It is surprising, given the extent of the claims of poor welfare made by those opposed to greyhound racing that they do not appear to have used any of the existing laws against those who fail to ensure the welfare of their dogs and that the Welsh Government has not brought in a statutory code which it can do under existing legislation. It is also worth noting that for those who do race greyhounds, it is in their interests to ensure dogs are as well cared for and as fit as possible.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

There seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the offence and what it prohibits. The impact assessment etc all seem predicated on an understanding that the ban in fact only impacts the Valley stadium and those owners/trainers and businesses involved with it. This view seems supported by the fact that licensing of owners, keepers and trainers in Wales is still being considered. The Explanatory memorandum states:

8.11. The option of licensing current owners, keepers and trainers of greyhounds is not being disregarded as the prohibition does not apply to the owning, keeping or owning for the purposes of training racing greyhounds. It is being considered as part of the broader work on the national model for the licensing of animal establishments. The Implementation Group may provide further advice on this matter. However, as this option does not align with the policy objective of the Bill, to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales, it falls outside the scope of this specific assessment.

This seems to be contradicted in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill which states:

Section 2 – Interpretation

The terms ‘greyhound racing’ and ‘operator’ are defined in section 2.

‘Greyhound racing’ is defined as “setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means (and this includes timing or training a greyhound as it runs around a track)”. As well as covering racing greyhounds against each other, this will include the following activities (provided they involve setting one or more greyhounds to run around a track after a mechanically activated lure):

a. “trials” (where a greyhound is timed for the purpose of determining its position, or race category, either in relation to a subsequent race, or for the purpose of selling it);

b. training a greyhound to run after a mechanically activated lure.

It would seem that the provisions go beyond the stated policy intention of achieving a ban on racing, as the offence is framed such that it would also prohibit much of the training of greyhounds in Wales where these dogs are to be raced outside Wales.  We would suggest the Bill is amended accordingly and also that “around a track” is defined so that training a greyhound around a field at home falls outside the offence. At the moment it is not entirely clear whether it is training in a circular (as opposed to linear) way that is prohibited and how a track might be understood.

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The enforcement provisions seem similar to other legislation regarding animals. The Alliance has no further comments. Enforcement is a prerequisite of enforcing a ban which is the stated policy intention.

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

These sections are not directly related to delivering the policy intention. We believe that it is vital to minimise the harm that this legislation will do and as such ministers only commence provisions at a time when there is least impact on greyhounds, and those whose livelihoods will be impacted.

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

It rather depends whether this Bill is concerned with greyhound welfare or the product of an ideological position which, as noted above, would logically result in a ban on a significant number of other activities involving animals in Wales.

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)?

As these are technical commencement arrangements we have no comments. However, given that this is purported to be about welfare, it would seem appropriate to allow Senedd members an opportunity to approve commencement so they can be assured that the welfare of greyhounds has indeed been taken into account during the transition period.

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

As noted above the offence as currently drafted would not simply close the Valley stadium but also make unlawful aspects of training greyhounds in Wales. This does not seem to have been fully understood or reflected in the assessment made of impact or cost of enforcement nor welfare consequences for greyhounds.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

As above, we do not think the scope of the offence and therefore the Bill’s impacts and costs have been adequately reflected. We are also surprised that no attempt appears to have been made to obtain the relevant financial data from Valley, not least in respect of its contractual arrangements with Sports Information Services (SIS) despite both being represented on the Implementation Group. Welsh Government has failed to establish basic data of individuals affected or the current and future losses resulting from this proposal. We understand that SIS assess the loss at £15 million over the next five years. This failure to obtain the data necessary to conduct a robust impact assessment is extraordinary.

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

The Bill is unprincipled, sets a dangerous precedent and seems more concerned with achieving a ban rather than improving welfare. It fails to balance the evidence which is strongly in favour of statutory regulation. We would refer to GBGB’s submission about what has been done, is being done and can be done to ensure welfare of greyhounds when racing. We would therefore suggest that opting for a ban and failing to consider regulation makes the legislation disproportionate and that inadequate consideration has been given to a more measured and evidence-led solution where greyhound welfare is considered across a dog’s lifetime.

Given that the Bill will effectively end a viable business and interferes with a contractual arrangement and future earnings without any compensation it would seem to infringe rights under the ECHR, in particular Article 1 (Protocol 1). The Bill amounts to a deprivation and not a control of property rights. It goes beyond what is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective (animal welfare) and is therefore a disproportionate interference. It is our understanding that legislation passed by the Senedd must be compatible with Convention rights. We would note that the prohibition on fur farming in 2000 paid compensation even though as a sovereign body the United Kingdom Parliament can in principle set aside ECHR/Human Rights Act requirements. Such is not the case for the devolved parliaments. Any interference with ECHR protected rights must be the minimum necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Having reviewed the evidence and the options between status quo, statutory regulation and a ban, we do not believe a ban can be justified but there is a strong case for regulation.

We would also note that a public petition representing only about 1% of the Welsh population, even assuming all signatories were Welsh residents, coupled with a spurious ethical argument are not an adequate basis for legislation as proposed. We would urge the Welsh Government to reconsider this proposal starting from animal welfare, not ideology and party-political necessity.

 

PGRWB 03 GREY2K USA Worldwide

Ymateb gan | Response from: GREY2K USA Worldwide

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

GREY2K USA Worldwide exists to end the cruelty of greyhound racing. It is our strong belief that an industry built on cruelty to dogs has no place in modern society, and therefore we are grateful to have the opportunity to share our views with the Committee.

We wholeheartedly support the general principles of the Bill, and specifically the intention to use legislation to end greyhound racing in Wales, as opposed to regulations or licensing. We believe that legislation is the only route to deliver the stated policy intention within the draft Bill.

Our position is very clear that we do not think licensing is an appropriate response to this problem, and only a full ban on greyhound racing, implemented through legislation, will end the cruelty and suffering caused by this gambling-led industry, and prevent a resurgence in the future.

A report by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC), referenced in your explanatory memorandum, concluded that welfare for dogs would be improved if they were not involved in racing, something which can only be enforced with legislation.

The SAWC report found all racing greyhounds face inherent risk of injury or fatality and other welfare harms. It also noted that GBGB’s Welfare Strategy attempts to modify the greyhound to meet human demands, over-interprets preliminary data and is unlikely to have a significant impact on reducing injury rates in racing greyhounds in the foreseeable future. SAWC was also sceptical that GBGB could enforce changes in the industry, as its jurisdiction is limited to the time greyhounds spend at the racetrack and it is reliant upon voluntary contributions from stakeholders.

Ultimately SAWC was left unconvinced the GBGB could ensure a good quality of life for greyhounds. SAWC did not see a strong desire in the industry to make the radical changes necessary to mitigate welfare risks and allow for good welfare to be maximised. No licensing scheme could achieve good welfare when the industry itself is unprepared to adopt substantive changes.

Despite the SDAWC report being commissioned by the Scottish Parliament, it is entirely relevant to the debate in Wales also, and for all the reasons outlined above, illustrates why we are very strongly in favour of legislation to end greyhound racing in Wales, over any other approach.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Yes, it is our view that the Bill clearly states what the policy intent is, and the terms and language used within the Bill are clearly defined, well-targeted and sufficiently strong to prohibit greyhound racing as the Bill intends.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The provisions set out in sections 1-3, and in Schedule 1 of the Bill are more than sufficient in our view to deliver the policy intention of the Bill. Complex legislation is not required for this issue, and the aim of ending greyhound racing will be delivered through prohibiting the activity as is clearly set out in the Bill.

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Again, it is our view that the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 are well tailored to deliver the policy intention of ending greyhound racing in Wales. The offences are clearly defined along with the enforcement powers in relation to these. In particular, the detail of Schedule 2 is sufficient, leaving no doubt that enforcement will be undertaken, and will not open loopholes which can be exploited.

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Yes, we think the provisions in sections 5 and 6 of the Bill are workable and will support delivery of the policy intent of the Bill. In particular, we think the timescale for the Bill coming into force is reasonable to allow for suitable homes to be found for greyhounds requiring adoption, and takes into account the responsibility this will place on animal welfare charities tasked with homing these dogs.

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

There are potential barriers around welfare, logistics and enforcement but it is our view the Welsh Government has recognised where these potential issues lie, and given careful consideration to mitigating them. In particular, by creating an implementation group, bringing together experts and key stakeholders in such a way, potential barriers can be addressed and overcome as the legislation progresses.

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

It is appropriate for Welsh Ministers to have the power to make subordinate legislation by Order to commence specified sections of the Act relating to greyhound racing. Commencement Orders are a standard and suitable mechanism to ensure that provisions come into force only when the necessary delivery, administrative, and enforcement arrangements are in place. The power is procedural, limited in scope, and aligns with normal devolved and legislative practice.

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

The consequence which of course must be given the utmost consideration is to the welfare of racing greyhounds, and while advocates for racing will argue that an end to greyhound racing could impact negatively on their welfare, we know from experience that suitable transitional arrangements, together with engagement with welfare organisations can mitigate any risks. We believe that the timescale outlined in the Bill will ensure there are no unintended consequences from an animal welfare perspective.

However, we do believe that an unintended consequence which could arise is the increase in individuals transporting greyhounds across the border to race in England, where greyhound racing remains legal. This has the potential to undermine the welfare benefits as is the policy intention of the Bill.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

We are satisfied that the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill is adequate.

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

We would like to reiterate our support for this Bill, and the leadership shown by the Welsh Government on this issue.

GREY2K has over two decades of experience working in multiple jurisdictions to end greyhound racing and has been pivotal in ending the cruelty of dog racing worldwide. In the USA dog racing is illegal in 44 states, with racing only taking place now in West Virginia. In our 23 year history we have closed down more than fifty tracks in the United States, the only legal dog tracks in China and Vietnam and also prevented the legalisation of greyhound gambling to countries such as South Africa, Jamaica, and the Philippines.

We would welcome the opportunity to share the extensive experience we have of being involved in bringing forward legislation to end greyhound racing with the Committee, and would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence should that be required.

 

PGRWB 04 Alison Littlejohn

Ymateb gan | Response from: Alison Littlejohn

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I strongly support the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and believe the ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.  

I fully agree with the following points that have been put forward by the League Against Cruel Sports.

The welfare sector is ready: The Wales Greyhound Partnership (WGP), made up of nine animal welfare charities, have demonstrated they have the capacity to safely rehabilitate and rehome all affected dogs within a year.

  • The WGP has the capacity to rehabilitate and rehome up to 258 dogs. With an average rehoming time of just two months, and 120 greyhounds successfully rehomed since its formation, the partnership has clearly demonstrated that it is highly possible to rehome dogs affected by the ban in a significantly shorter timeframe than that currently proposed in the legislation.
  • In New Zealand, in the penultimate year of racing (2024/2025) before the country’s own ban takes effect, injuries to greyhounds rose sharply: more than 800 dogs were injured, including 114 broken bones, and 17 deaths, making it the deadliest year for greyhounds since the industry was placed on notice. This demonstrates that racing can often intensify when under threat, and Wales must work to prevent the same.
  • A clear, firm end date gives both the industry and rescue groups time to prepare responsibly while protecting dogs from further harm.
  • It is important that the penalties under the legislation act as a strong deterrent to prevent racing from continuing illegally, and that the law is flexible to apply to individuals involved — including trainers and owners of any greyhound raced or trialled in Wales, as well as track operators and organisers.

Please take part to help ensure the ban is fully implemented within 12 months of the Act coming into force, so Wales can protect dogs from further suffering and lead the way as the first UK nation to end greyhound racing for good.

 

 

PGRWB 05 Les Penry

Ymateb gan | Response from: Les Penry

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I am writing to express my strong support for the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and to urge that the ban takes effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force. Allowing greyhound racing to continue until 2030 is far too long. Each additional year means more dogs will be bred, raced, injured, or killed, placing greater pressure on rescue and rehoming organisations.

The welfare sector is ready. The Wales Greyhound Partnership (WGP), comprised of nine animal welfare charities, has shown they have the capacity to safely rehabilitate and rehome all affected dogs within a year. The WGP can rehabilitate and rehome up to 258 dogs, with an average rehoming time of just two months. Since its formation, the partnership has successfully rehomed 120 greyhounds, clearly demonstrating the feasibility of rehoming dogs affected by the ban in a significantly shorter timeframe than currently proposed in the legislation.

Looking at New Zealand as an example, in the penultimate year of racing (2024/2025) before the country’s own ban takes effect, injuries to greyhounds rose sharply: over 800 dogs were injured, including 114 broken bones and 17 deaths, making it the deadliest year for greyhounds since the industry was placed on notice. This demonstrates that racing can often intensify when under threat, and Wales must work to prevent the same situation.

A clear, firm end date gives both the industry and rescue groups time to prepare responsibly while protecting dogs from further harm. It is important that the penalties under the legislation act as a strong deterrent to prevent racing from continuing illegally and that the law is flexible to apply to individuals involved, including trainers and owners of any greyhound raced or trialled in Wales, as well as track operators and organisers.

Please take part to help ensure the ban is fully implemented within 12 months of the Act coming into force, so Wales can protect dogs from further suffering and lead the way as the first UK nation to end greyhound racing for good.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

PGRWB 06 Diane Lewis

Ymateb gan | Response from: Diane Lewis

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I really hope greyhound racing will finally be prohibited in Wales.

These beautiful gentle creatures have no place in a racing track.

Please make sure the ban comes into effect as soon as such legislation comes into law.

 

PGRWB 07 Robert Williams

Ymateb gan | Response from: Robert Williams

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I strongly support the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and believe the ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.

Allowing racing to continue until 2030 is far too long. Each extra year means more dogs will be bred, raced, injured, or killed, and put greater pressure on rescue and rehoming organisations.

 

PGRWB 08 Christine Evans

Ymateb gan | Response from: Christine Evans

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

Thank you for considering my views.

 

PGRWB 09 Jane Hurley

Ymateb gan | Response from: Jane Hurley

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I entirely support the Bill for Prohibition of grey hound racing.
It ought to come into force asap and definitely within a twelve month.
Another five years is unthinkable for yet more suffering of animals.
It’s unethical.
Please ensure the ban comes in as soon as possible, and is able to be enforced using penalties.

 

PGRWB 10 Dr Huw Jones Jenkins

Ymateb gan | Response from: Dr Huw Jones Jenkins

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

PGRWB 11 Cut the Chase Coalition

Ymateb gan | Response from: Cut the Chase Coalition

About Cut the Chase

The Cut the Chase Coalition comprises Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Greyhound Rescue Wales, Hope Rescue and the RSPCA. Our coalition has been working towards an end to greyhound racing in Wales since 2022 to protect the relevant dogs from injury and death. However, as individual members, we have been working for many years to improve the welfare of racing greyhounds in Wales.

As a coalition, we very much welcome the legislation as it brings us ever closer to ending greyhound racing in Wales. In its current form, the Bill will prohibit the commercial racing of greyhounds while also preventing the training and trialling of greyhounds for racing purposes at stadiums and other similar venues. This is particularly positive as it prevents greyhounds from being schooled in Wales.

We also welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee’s consultation on the prohibition of greyhound racing in Wales. The information enclosed in this response provides an overview of the changes that we would like to see to the proposed legislation ensuring the welfare of greyhounds in Wales is safeguarded.

The general principles of the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the Bill’s stated policy objective, which is to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales.

The Cut the Chase Coalition agrees with the general principles of the Bill and that there is a clear need for legislation to deliver the Bill’s stated policy objective to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales. We have significant welfare concerns for racing greyhounds throughout their lives and when their racing career ends.

There are a myriad of welfare issues reported to affect greyhounds at every stage of their life cycle. To give some examples, these include inadequate socialisation and habituation of puppies as well as tattooing of puppies for identification during rearing, poor environments during schooling, trialling and racing, inappropriate transportation at all stages, presence of dental disease and impacts of extreme weather.

While the proposed legislation is focused on greyhound racing in Wales where dogs are typically racing or leaving the industry, it will also impact upon trialling and schooling which also pose welfare issues which cannot be ignored.

The inherent danger to the dogs by participating in greyhound racing GBGB’s own figures show that over 4,000 greyhounds died and over 35,000 injuries were recorded as a result of licensed greyhound racing between 2018 and 2024, with additional dogs injured on independent tracks.

·         Significant welfare challenges for greyhounds at all stages of the dogs’ lives, including during their racing career and once their career is over.

Focusing on racing itself, the industry’s own statistics provide the most reliable evidence as to the inherent risk of injury and death posed and why an end to greyhound racing is the only way to safeguard their welfare. According to the latest statistics from GBGB, published in June 2025, 346 dogs involved in racing died for reasons other than natural causes/illness in 2024, while 3,809 injuries were also recorded.[1] For the first time since the publication of these statistics began, the number of track fatalities increased, with 123 dogs having died at tracks licensed by GBGB - up from 109 the previous year.[2] While this data covers tracks in both Wales and England - with GBGB regulating 19 at present - they are the first set of statistics that cover a full year of racing at the Valley Greyhound Stadium in Ystrad Mynach which became regulated by GBGB in 2023.[3][4] Although it is worth noting that where data is provided by the industry, e.g. injury, death and rehoming figures, there has been a change in the categories used to compile annual statistics which makes comparisons of change or progress over multiple years very challenging. This clearly demonstrates a lack of transparency from the industry when it comes to the publication of these statistics.

We also know from Hope Rescue’s Amazing Greys report prior to the Valley Stadium being licensed by GBGB, between 2018 and 2021, that the Amazing Greys project helped over 200 racing greyhounds whose owners and/or trainers had links with the Valley racetrack. Of these dogs, 40 endured serious, career ending injuries such as severe fractures needing significant veterinary treatment, amputation or orthopaedic repair.[5] There also was significant evidence gathered by organisations submitting evidence to the Senedd’s Petitions Committee in 2022 following its consultation seeking views on a ban on greyhound racing in Wales. The petition and the respective consultation collated data and evidence of poor welfare within greyhound racing.[6] These different sources of evidence and case studies within Amazing Greys provide irrefutable evidence of poor welfare within greyhound racing and that racing around oval tracks at speeds of around 40mph is inherently dangerous, with serious consequences for dog welfare.

The terms used in the Bill, whether defined or not. In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention.

The Cut the Chase Coalition believes in its current form, the Bill will prohibit the commercial racing of greyhounds around tracks at stadiums and similar venues while, by definition, also outlawing training and trialling of greyhounds around tracks for racing purposes as this is also classed as ‘greyhound racing’.

This is particularly positive as the schooling of greyhounds around tracks for racing purposes carries the same inherent risks as racing on a commercial basis. The proposed legislation currently covers the operator or track/similar venue and any persons involved in organising greyhound racing. To mitigate any unintended consequences that could arise such as the facilitation of illegal racing, it is highly important that the legislation is applicable to individuals as well as track operators/owners and that this is specified in the Explanatory Memorandum. This would help ensure that the offence is a deterrent to everyone involved, not just the organisers.

Positively, the passing of this Bill in 2026 could see racing end in Wales by the 1st of April 2027 and our coalition is highly supportive of such action. However, in its current form, its provisions may also see greyhound racing continue here until April 2030. We do not believe that such a long timeframe is necessary as demonstrated through the work of the Wales Greyhound Partnership (WGP).

The WGP comprises nine animal welfare organisations - including our coalition’s members - and at this current time has the capacity to rehome up to 258 dogs, over an average of a two month period.[7] As we are actively preparing to rehome the dogs affected, we question whether such a long timeframe will be necessary and look forward to working with the Implementation Group to deliver an end to greyhound racing sooner rather than later.

With an average length of time for rehoming of about two months and 120 dogs rehomed since its conception this year, the Partnership has clearly demonstrated that it is highly possible to rehome dogs affected by the ban in a much shorter time period than the legislation would allow for.[8] Furthermore, this window is much greater than that provided for other tracks closed by the industry. For example, the closure of Swindon was announced in March 2025, with racing to cease at the end of December 2025.[9]

Any potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions, and whether the Bill and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum and Regulatory Impact Assessment take adequate account of them.

We believe there are no barriers to the implementation within the Bill’s provisions or other documents outlined in the questions. The only concern the Coalition has is that the Bill only makes organisers and operators liable for offences under the Bill which could prove difficult to determine. A possible solution, as is the case for hare coursing, could be to extend the offence to participants, attendees or facilitators which would include owners and trainers.

Whether there are any unintended consequences arising from the Bill.

The Cut the Chase Coalition believes that this Bill will prohibit greyhound racing and deliver positive changes to the welfare of racing greyhounds. We are proud that Wales will be the first UK nation to prohibit greyhound racing. We believe it is too early to be able to judge whether this Bill has unintended consequences but we have a unique opportunity to review the legislation, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, no later than five years after it is implemented, this will provide the opportunity to tweak the legislation if needed to fix any unintended consequences. However, it is important that any review conducted has means of collecting data on the impacts of the legislation, such as number of dogs rehomed, and the number of convictions under the new legislation - between the implementation date and review.

The Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial and other impacts of the Bill as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

The Coalition agrees with the Welsh Government’s assessment of the Financial and other impacts of the Bill as set out in Part two of the Explanatory Memorandum. We do not see any long term implications on the Welsh Government and Local Authorities who will be enforcing the legislation, as Wales only has one track based in Caerphilly County Borough Council. No other venue will have the appropriate facilities or equipment to host and organise an event.

We also agree with the Welsh Government’s assessment, given during the Ministerial evidence session to the Committee in October 2025, that it would be very obvious if someone was organising an illicit race. This is because of the size of greyhound racing tracks ranging between 300-1,000 yards, the infrastructure needed to facilitate a similar experience would be highly difficult to replicate on an illegal basis. We also know that the Greyhound racing industry depends on income generated through live streaming for the purposes of gambling, which they will be unable to do, when the “sport” is prohibited. This means it would not be feasible to put in place the infrastructure required for live streaming for illicit racing which removes the commercial incentive racing - making it unviable and not worth the risk.

The appropriateness of the power in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation (as set out in Part 1: Chapter 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum).

Matters relating to the competence of the Senedd including compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Cut the Chase is focused on animal welfare and we do not take a view on this question.

The balance between the information contained on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation.

Cut the Chase is focused on animal welfare and we do not take a view on this question.

Any matter related to the quality of the legislation.

We believe that this legislation will deliver its stated aim of ending greyhound racing in Wales, which is hugely welcome as a positive step forward for the welfare of racing greyhounds. As a Coalition we are very happy with the quality of this legislation. It is obvious to us that the Bill’s drafting team has consulted with other nations within the UK, namely Scotland, and has built upon this piece of legislation to deliver an effective end to greyhound racing in Wales as outlined by the Deputy First Minister for Wales and Civil Servants in Wales in the Ministerial evidence session held by the Committee in October 2025.

Also if we look internationally, we can see that there are other pieces of legislation that are trying to achieve the same outcome, namely in Tasmania and New Zealand. New Zealand announced its plans to ban greyhound racing shortly before the Welsh Government, with its government having recently confirmed that it will legislate on the closure of the greyhound racing industry by July 31st 2026.[10] In August 2025, Tasmania also confirmed its intention to phase out the activity, with its premier having recently vowed to end greyhound racing in the state by 2029.[11]

This demonstrates that Wales and the Welsh Government are moving in lockstep with public opinion, and the international movement towards protecting the welfare of racing greyhounds.[12][13] The social licence once afforded to greyhound racing has eroded and the public do not want it to continue. For example, in the run up to the deadline for this licensing consultation, more than 19,400 people signed the RSPCA’s latest open letter calling for an end to greyhound racing in Wales. The most recent polling undertaken by RSPCA Cymru in 2024 also shows that 77% of people either fully support (52%) or somewhat support (25%) the Cut the Chase coalition’s calls for such action from the Welsh Government.

Any other matter related to the constitutional or other implications of the Bill.

Although the Cut the Chase Coalition is focused on animal welfare we do welcome the Welsh Government’s plan to engage with workers impacted by this legislation and its commitment to engage with the Local Authority and owners of the track as part of the Implementation Group to talk about how the land can be repurposed after the implementation of this legislation.

 

PGRWB 12 Manuela Vogler

Ymateb gan | Response from: Manuela Vogler

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I am aware that a ban on greyhound racing is being considered and I am writing to express my support for banning this cruel practice. I strongly oppose any cruel “sports“ of which greyhound racing is certainly one. As a society we should ask ourselves whom this is benefiting most. The answers we will find are sobering: bookies and the whole shady betting industry, and dog breeders who know fine well that these dogs will be abused. The term “sport“ is not appropriate. This activity  is based on animal cruelty and gambling. This has no place in a civilised society. It's a disgusting activity and should be banned. This must stop now and not in 5 years. 

I strongly support the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill.

 

PGRWB 13 Betting and Gaming Council

Ymateb gan: Y Cyngor Betio a Hapchwarae | Response from: Betting and Gaming Council

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) represents over 90% of the UK’s regulated betting and gaming sector (excluding lotteries). Our sector supports 109,000 jobs, contributes £6.8 billion in economic value, and delivers £4 billion in tax revenue to the Exchequer annually. Our mission is to set world class standards to ensure an enjoyable, fair and safe betting experience for all of our customers.

As part of our mission, the BGC has introduced 20 Codes and 100 measures which our members abide by as a condition of membership to drive up standards and to support a sustainable and safer gaming environment for all. It is in this vein, the BGC believes that robust regulation and not prohibition is the most effective safeguard to welfare which also considers economic and social benefits. The BGC notes that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) provides an extremely robust framework to ensure the welfare and integrity of the sport.

Whilst we acknowledge and respect the Welsh Government’s autonomy in this area, we note that banning of greyhound racing is fundamentally opposed to UK government policy. On 27 February 2025, the Secretary of State of Culture, Media and Sport told the House of Commons:

“We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.”

We support these comments by the Secretary of State, in that greyhound racing is a significant net contributor to the UK, not just in terms of economics but also the enjoyment it brings to fans of the sport, and the many people employed around the UK. The GBGB have a robust welfare system in place, ensuring that every greyhound participating within the sport receives the highest levels of care, both during their career and in retirement. The fact is, that banning greyhound racing will have a negative impact on welfare, not a positive one.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The policy intention of the Bill is to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales, which will make it an offence to:

a) Operate a stadium or similar venue in Wales and use it, or knowingly permit it to be used, for greyhound racing; and

b) Be involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales.

If enacted, this Bill will deliver the stated policy intention. However, the BGC makes the following observation:

The Bill does not fully address the welfare of greyhounds nor the material threat that unregulated, illegal racing may be allowed to flourish in the absence of a regulated body presiding over the sport.

In progressing with this regulation, the Senedd must be confident that it has fully understood the welfare implications for greyhounds currently involved in racing within Wales and the wider impacts relating to a blanket ban. We defer to the GBGB for their detailed analysis of this.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The provisions set out in sections 1-3 are:

Prohibition of greyhound racing

(1) A person commits an offence if a person—

(a) is an operator of a stadium or similar venue in Wales and uses it, or knowingly permits it to be used, for greyhound racing, or

(b) is involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

Interpretation

In this Act—

(a) “greyhound racing” means setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means (and this includes timing or training a greyhound as it runs around a track);

(b) “operator” (in relation to a stadium or similar venue) means—

(i) the owner of the stadium or venue;

(ii) the person, other than the owner, with overall responsibility for the operation of the stadium or venue or, if that person is not present in the United Kingdom, the person in the United Kingdom responsible for the operation of the stadium or venue. Offences by bodies corporate etc.

Schedule 1 makes provision about offences under section 1 committed by bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations other than partnerships.

Schedule 1 of the Bill relates to Offences by Corporate Bodies detailing the commission of offences and proceedings.

The policy intention is to ban greyhound racing. Should the Bill be enacted sections 1-3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill will deliver the stated policy intention. However, the BGC makes the following observations:

Section 1 of the Bill will likely jeopardise the welfare of greyhounds in Wales as the regulated body of Greyhound racing will no longer be able to provide resources, care and support to Greyhounds during their lifetime.

Section 2 of the Bill includes the training of greyhounds which will likely result in Welsh based Greyhounds travelling intercountry in order train and compete, significantly impacting the greyhounds and increasing their risk of injury.

The BGC has no comments on Section 3.

The BGC has no comments on Schedule 1.

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Section 4 relates to enforcement of prohibition of greyhound racing. Section 2 details these powers.

The policy intention is to ban greyhound racing. Should the Bill be enacted Schedule 2 will deliver the stated policy intention. The BGC again reiterates that robust regulation over prohibition is the best course of action and in the best interest for the welfare of greyhounds.

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The provisions set out in sections 5-6 are:

Coming into force

(1) This section and section 6 come into force on the day after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force on a day appointed by the Welsh Ministers in an order made by Welsh statutory instrument, but they must be brought into force on a day that is—

(a) no sooner than 1 April 2027, and

(b) no later than 1 April 2030.

Title

This Act may be referred to as—

(a) the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Act 2026, or

(b) Deddf Gwahardd Rasio Milgwn (Cymru) 2026.

The policy intention is to ban greyhound racing. Should the Bill be enacted Schedule 2 will deliver the stated policy intention no sooner than 1st April 2027 and no later than 1 April 2030. However, the BGC makes the following observations: Should this Bill be enacted, there must sufficient resources available to rehome the inevitably large number of greyhounds who will no longer continue racing. Under the current regulated system, the GBGB is working towards a sustainable scheme where the amount of greyhounds entering racing is equal to those being rehomed once retiring from the sport. This Bill will undoubtedly disrupt this progress and unduly impact the welfare of greyhounds.

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

Sufficient care, resources and planning must be taken into account with regards to the welfare of the greyhounds if this bill is enacted.

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)?

The BGC has no comments on Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

As previously set out, there is a material and significant risk towards the welfare of greyhounds. There is uncertainty of rehoming and sufficient care towards greyhounds who will no longer be under the protection of the GBGB. There is also a risk of unlicensed, illegal greyhound racing which will primarily negatively affect greyhounds, but will also undermine the regulated market, put consumers at risk, as well as incur financial and time resources to police and enforce against.

The Senedd must also take into account the impact on the local economy due to the closing of the track. We defer to submissions by the track, GBGB and others with regard the financial detail of this.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

The financial impacts on the owners of the Valley Stadium is not fully detailed in the Explanatory Memorandum. The Memorandum states that employment would be adversely affected both on the track and through trainers. All negative employment impacts are stated to be small in the context of the general labour market churn in Wales.

It is the view of the BGC that more thorough and conclusive analysis should have been carried out to provide an accurate depiction of the true impact on employment losses to the track and local community. Furthermore, those who are trainers are highly skilled and have specialised knowledge, by removing this sector, these people cannot simply transfer jobs in the local community. This would force many to relocate or learn new skills, the cost of which is significant and not accounted for in the memorandum.

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

The BGC would respectfully urge Welsh Government to reconsider this Bill. The improvement of Greyhound welfare can be achieved through sensible and robust regulation with no undue impact on the welfare of greyhounds, local employment, the economy and the sport itself (which is enjoyed responsibly by many). If the Government believes that the sport is currently contrary to the public interest or the welfare of greyhounds; the starting point should be to raise standards and not to put a blanket ban on the sports.

PGRWB 14 Individual

Ymateb gan: Unigolyn | Response from: Individual

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I strongly support the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill. This ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force. Waiting for another five years is far too long. The Wales Greyhound Partnership are able to rehome all affected dogs within a year. Dog racing is a cruel practice a society shouldn’t engage in. It’s time to stop this now rather than procrastinating things for years on end.

 

PGRWB 15 Lorraine Czaja

Ymateb gan | Response from: Lorraine Czaja

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

Please take part to help ensure the ban is fully implemented within 12 months of the Act coming into force, so Wales can protect dogs from further suffering and lead the way as the first UK nation to end greyhound racing for good.

PGRWB 16 Ken Needham

Ymateb gan | Response from: Ken Needham

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I would like to declare my support in the banning of Greyhound racing.

I believe that these animals are treated as commodities to make money, serious injury is common during races, cruelty is rife, and when the dogs are either not performing or passed performing, discarded in some inhuman way.

Please ensure this ends as soon as possible.

 

PGRWB 17 Ruth Joseph

Ymateb gan | Response from: Ruth Joseph

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I’m disgusted that in these enlightened times that greyhounds are still being used for cheap entertainment and profit for some as a so called industry!!
These poor animals are horribly treated, their nutrition is appalling and so many fracture bones and are emotionally disturbed.

While most end up being killed or are maimed at the end of a very short life.
This cannot be right and needs to stop.

You have the power in your hands to change the lives of so many dogs who deserve a life of love and contentment with owners who care for them not numbers on a track.

Please use your powers and stop this ghastly industry once and for all.

 

PGRWB 18 Alain Thomas, Trustee, Greyhound Rescue Wales

Ymateb gan: Alain Thomas, Ymddiriedolwr, Achub Milgwn Cymru | Response from: Alain Thomas, Trustee, Greyhound Rescue Wales

Working to secure voluntary improvements and statutory regulation to protect the welfare of greyhounds in Wales – a timeline.

Context

In a hearing of the committee on 14.10.25. a committee member said they were not aware of efforts by welfare organisations to work with the industry and Welsh Government in Wales to secure welfare improvements through voluntary initiatives or regulation. I have been involved in this work since 2001 and this document summarises a timeline of the key events. The pause in efforts between 2009 and 2018 explains why the member concerned may not have been aware of this work as that time period includes his term of tenure as the Minister responsible for Animal Welfare.

2001 The start of work to improve greyhound welfare in Wales.

Greyhound Rescue Wales started work in 1993. In its early years the organisation took into its care many greyhounds who were literally being thrown onto the streets once their racing days were over. Some were handed over by members of the public who had found them, others were taken into local authority pounds and came to GRW from there.

GRW knew the abandonment of greyhounds was a serious welfare problem but needed to evidence it. The opportunity came with the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales.

In 2001, GRW was invited to make a presentation at the first meeting of the All-Party Group for Animal Welfare, at the recently established National Assembly for Wales.

 

This presentation led to the establishment of the Wales Greyhound Forum which brought together Dogs Trust, RSPCA Cymru, and GRW. The Forum was chaired by Assembly Member Lorraine Barret and conducted crucial research which found that 139 abandoned greyhounds had been handed in to local authority pounds in Wales in a single year. The findings were published by the National Assembly for Wales All Party Group for Animal Welfare and Greyhound Rescue Wales in a report: “The fates of former racing greyhounds and working lurchers in Wales[14]”. This report estimated that hundreds of greyhounds would meet what it called “unacceptable fates” in Wales each year at the end of their racing career. These fates included abandonment or death.

 

2002 -2004 Attempts to engage with the Welsh Tracks

 

There were three independent tracks in Wales at this time: Bedwellty, Swansea and Valley. Because the industry was small in scale Wales Greyhound Forum members believed welfare improvements could be achieved by engaging directly with the three tracks. The tracks were therefore invited to send representatives to meet with the Forum members to work for welfare improvements. Only the Swansea track sent a representative, it therefore proved impossible to make any progress.

 

2004 The tragedy of Last Hope.

 

On May 2nd 2004, a black greyhound called “Last Hope” was found on a mountainside near Caerphilly. He had been shot in the head by a bolt gun and both his ears had been cut off to prevent him being identified through his ear tattoos. This event sent shock waves through people involved in animal welfare and in greyhound racing in Wales. GRW worked with the RSPCA, Gwent Police, and people involved in greyhound racing to identify all the people involved in Last Hope’s death and successfully prosecuted the man who killed him.

 

Last Hope’s death had many consequences.

 

·         For many years after Last Hope’s death greyhound owners and trainers would come to GRW to ask us to rehome their dogs, few had done so previously

·         As a tribute to Last Hope and to help other dogs whose life was at immediate risk GRW set up the “Last Hope Fund” which has since paid for life saving treatment for many injured greyhounds.

·         The death of Last Hope also moved Vanessa Waddon to become actively involved in dog welfare and the charity she set up is named after him.

·         Another consequence of direct relevance to the issue of working with the Welsh tracks is that following Last Hope’s death they finally engaged with the Wales Greyhound Forum.

 

Within 24 hours of Last Hope’s death GRW representatives had visited all three tracks in person and all three all three had signed a pledge to work with welfare organisations to make sure nothing like this happened again.

 

2004-2007 The first greyhound welfare code of practice for Wales

 

Track and welfare representatives worked together for several years under the chairmanship of Lorraine Barrett AM. This work culminated in the production of a set of draft regulations to protect greyhounds in Wales; “A better bet for greyhounds”[15], which was launched at what is now the Senedd on 21.11.2007.

 

Discussions then began with Welsh Government about implementation of the regulations. At first these were promising and because of this and the fact that draft Welsh regulations were more comprehensive than the Welfare of Greyhounds legislation being developed in England[16], welfare organisations focused on securing the implementation of “A Better Bet for Greyhounds” rather than pressing for Wales to adopt the English legislation.

 

2007-2009 Track closures

 

By 2007 one of the three tracks (Bedwellty) had closed for economic reasons and in November 2009, Swansea, which was widely considered to be Wales’ leading track at the time, closed following the prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act, of an individual working at the track. The offence related to the conditions in  the kennels where the greyhounds were kept.

 

GRW had anticipated the closure of Swansea and meticulously planned a concerted effort involving partner organisation including Dogs Trust and RSPCA Cymru to offer every greyhound who raced at Swansea an immediate rescue place. Over 40 greyhounds were taken in by the partners in the days following the last race.

 

The experience of taking in greyhounds following the closure of Swansea have informed the work of the current Welsh Greyhound Partnership, established in anticipation of the closure of Valley.

 

2009 – the end of the first phase of pressing for regulation

 

The closure of Swansea left only one operational track in Wales, the Valley Stadium at  Ystrad Mynach. The reduction in the number of tracks led Welsh Government to decide that the scale of the problem no longer merited legislation and the decision was taken not to turn the draft regulations into law. The timeline of these events also meant that the opportunity to adopt the English regulations was also lost.

 

Although the remaining track had signed up to the provisions of “A Better Bet for Greyhounds, it did nothing to implement any of them on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless, GRW and the other welfare organisations decided that it was likely the remaining track would also close soon. For this reason, and because the number of greyhounds needing help had reduced and was therefore more manageable, the welfare organisations decided to suspend efforts to secure regulation.

 

2018 The start of the second phase: Amazing Greys and the Greyhound Welfare Working Group

 

By 2018 it was clear that Valley was unlikely to close in the near future so Greyhound Rescue Wales and Hope Rescue jointly decided to restart efforts to secure welfare improvements in Wales.

 

2018 – 2021 Amazing Greys.

 

Hope Rescue set up the Amazing Greys project. The project offered an immediate rescue place to every greyhound leaving the Valley stadium. Its work is well documented in other evidence submitted to the Committee.

 

2018 – 2022 The Greyhound Working Group

 

Greyhound Rescue Wales initiated and led Animal Welfare Network Wales’ Greyhound Welfare Working Group which included Hope Rescue, RSPCA Cymru, Battersea Dogs and Cats Homes, and the British Veterinary Association to try, once again, to improve the welfare of greyhounds in Wales. The group drew up a “Road Map” which began with efforts to engage with the track and secure voluntary improvements while also working towards statutory regulation. Should these efforts fail, the road map suggested the next step should be to press for a ban.

 

After some evidence gathering the GWWG’s early efforts focused on working with the remaining track to improve welfare. One initiative involved contacting all veterinary practices within a reasonable distance of the track to try and recruit vets willing to attend the track for £100 per race-night. This is much lower than the commercial rate and it was made clear to the vets that the prime motivation of any practice or individual choosing to participate in the project had to be to improve the welfare of the dogs. Sufficient vets were identified who were willing to attend on a rota basis and this offer was made to the track who turned it down as being unaffordable. This response made it clear to GRW that the track had no interest in improving welfare on a voluntary basis.

The Greyhound Welfare Working Group then focused its efforts on producing a new set of welfare regulations for greyhounds in Wales, at the request of Welsh Government,  to set out some clear and up to date standards to which the track could be held accountable.

The resultant voluntary code of practice “The welfare of racing greyhounds (Wales)” was published on 29.10.2019[17]. It is a detailed document setting out standards covering all aspects of the life of the racing greyhound throughout the greyhound’s life cycle.

This code was widely disseminated within the greyhound industry in Wales. Efforts included Amazing Greys volunteers giving to hard copies of the Code personally to the trainers and owners they met while attending race nights.

An addition to the code of practice covering track surfaces was then produced later in 2021.

Despite the extensive dissemination of the code of practice and addendum there was no discernible change in welfare practices affecting greyhounds in Wales.

2022 Changes of position and a new alliance. GRW had adopted a neutral position on greyhound racing and tried to work with the racing industry for over 20 years to secure welfare improvements, but nothing had changed. A proposal was therefore submitted to and approved by a Special General Meeting of members in March 2022 to “support the movement to end greyhound racing in Wales”. This marked a fundamental shift in GRW’s position and allowed the organisation to join once more with Hope Rescue who had been leading a campaign to ban greyhound racing in Wales since the end of the Amazing Greys project. Later that year Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and Blue Cross also changed their position and called for a phased end to greyhound racing.

Alain Thomas

Founder and trustee Greyhound Rescue Wales, Former Chair of the AWNW Greyhound Welfare Working Group, Chair of the Welsh Greyhound Partnership

 

PGRWB 19 Jenny Lloyd

Ymateb gan | Response from: Jenny Lloyd

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

Please find below bullet points outlining the great importance of acting as quickly as possible to end the cruel sport of Greyhound racing in Wales. Anyone who truly cares about the welfare of dogs will fully understand that there is no excuse to continue such a barbaric sport for the sole aim of gambling ( an activity in itself that causes enormous harm to those involved)

Let Wales be a leader in compassion and help to work towards a kinder world for all animals!

 

PGRWB 20 The Kennel Club

Ymateb gan | Response from: The Kennel Club

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

The Kennel Club is an active member of the Greyhound Forum, working in conjunction with other animal welfare organisations and the industry to improve welfare standards throughout the whole life of racing greyhounds, both at and away from the track.

In response to the Welsh Government’s 2024 consultation - “Licensing of animal welfare establishments, activities and exhibits” - we supported the introduction of a licensing scheme to regulate greyhound racing in Wales. We believe it would’ve been appropriate to try a regulatory solution first, before an outright ban.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether  defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

We believe the Bill as drafted will deliver the stated policy intention.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)?

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

The Bill will ban greyhound racing in Wales, which has the potential to result in negative outcomes for the dogs currently racing in Wales. We are pleased that the Welsh Government has established an expert implementation group. It’s of paramount importance that the welfare of racing greyhounds is given primary consideration in relation to the implementation of the proposed legislation.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

 

PGRWB 21 Angela Shearing

Ymateb gan | Response from: Angela Shearing

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I strongly support the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and believe the ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.

Allowing racing to continue until 2030 is far too long. Each extra year means more dogs will be bred, raced, injured, or killed, and put greater pressure on rescue and rehoming organisations.

The welfare sector is ready: The Wales Greyhound Partnership (WGP), made up of nine animal welfare charities, have demonstrated they have the capacity to safely rehabilitate and rehome all affected dogs within a year.

The WGP has the capacity to rehabilitate and rehome up to 258 dogs. With an average rehoming time of just two months, and 120 greyhounds successfully rehomed since its formation, the partnership has clearly demonstrated that it is highly possible to rehome dogs affected by the ban in a significantly shorter timeframe than that currently proposed in the legislation.

In New Zealand, in the penultimate year of racing (2024/2025) before the country’s own ban takes effect, injuries to greyhounds rose sharply: more than 800 dogs were injured, including 114 broken bones, and 17 deaths, making it the deadliest year for greyhounds since the industry was placed on notice. This demonstrates that racing can often intensify when under threat, and Wales must work to prevent the same.

A clear, firm end date gives both the industry and rescue groups time to prepare responsibly while protecting dogs from further harm.

It is important that the penalties under the legislation act as a strong deterrent to prevent racing from continuing illegally, and that the law is flexible to apply to individuals involved — including trainers and owners of any greyhound raced or trialled in Wales, as well as track operators and organisers.

PGRWB 22 Mike Doughty

Ymateb gan | Response from: Mike Doughty

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I write to voice my strong support the upcoming Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill.

It is to the Senedd's credit that this bill has been brought forward and it needs to pass into law.

The ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.

I look forward to its successful passing.

 

PGRWB 23 Melanie Jenkins

Ymateb gan | Response from: Melanie Jenkins

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I write to voice my strong support the upcoming Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill.

It is to the Senedd's credit that this bill has been brought forward and it needs to pass into law.

The ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.

I look forward to its successful passing.

 

PGRWB 24 Linda Leeves

Ymateb gan | Response from: Linda Leeves

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I strongly support the ban on greyhound racing. The ban should proceed immediately as delay will cost lives and further injury to greyhounds. I cannot understand why people can support the sport knowing that these greyhound run such a high risk of injury. Wales can be a leader in banning this so called sport.

 

PGRWB 25 Sheila Andersen

Senedd Cymru | Welsh Parliament

Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg, Chwaraeon, a Chysylltiadau Rhyngwladol | Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee

Bil Gwahardd Rasio Milgwn (Cymru) | Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill

Ymateb gan | Response from: Sheila Andersen

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

I strongly support the above noted bill and believe the ban should take effect within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.

Allowing racing to continue 2030 means that more dogs will be bred, raced, injured, or killed, and put greater pressure on rescue and rehoming organisations.

A clear, firm end date gives both the industry and rescue groups time to prepare responsibly while protecting dogs from further harm.

 

PGRWB 26 SPCA New Zealand

Ymateb gan: SPCA Seland Newydd | Response from: SPCA New Zealand

Tēnā koutou,

Letter of Support: Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New Zealand (SPCA NZ) strongly supports the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and stands alongside the RSPCA UK in calling for an end to this industry.

As New Zealand’s oldest and largest animal welfare organisation, we have closely monitored the welfare impacts of commercial greyhound racing both here and overseas. In New Zealand, the industry has long been associated with high injury rates, inadequate socialisation, oversupply of dogs, and poor transparency. These are not isolated problems; they are systemic issues inherent to commercial greyhound racing.

After decades of attempted reform, the New Zealand Government concluded that these harms could not be eliminated through regulation alone. In 2024, Cabinet announced that greyhound racing in New Zealand will be phased out entirely by 31 July 2026. This decision reflects strong public sentiment, robust scientific evidence, and multiple independent reviews that found the welfare risks to be intrinsic to the industry’s operations.

SPCA NZ commends the Welsh Government for taking steps to end greyhound racing. Our experience shows that regulatory changes cannot address the fundamental welfare harms of the industry, and prohibition is the only effective way to prevent further suffering. We support a managed wind-down period to ensure greyhounds are responsibly rehomed and to enable a fair, just transition for those employed in the sector.

We stand in solidarity with the RSPCA UK and other animal protection organisations advocating for this Bill. Prohibiting greyhound racing in Wales will prevent avoidable injuries and deaths, reduce the burden on rescue and rehoming organisations, and align legislation with contemporary community values on animal welfare.

Nāku noa, nā

Dr Arnja Dale

Chief Scientific Officer, SPCA New Zealand

 

PGRWB 27 Arena Racing Company

Ymateb gan | Response from: Arena Racing Company

Please note, Arena Racing Company (ARC) is the operator of five greyhound racing stadia, all located in England (Central Park, Dunstall Park, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sunderland). ARC opened Britain’s newest greyhound racing stadium, Dunstall Park in Wolverhampton, in September 2025, with greyhound welfare at the heart of the design and development of the racing surface and supporting facilities.

ARC stands behind and supports the responses to this consultation as supplied by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) and Premier Greyhound Racing (PGR), the latter of which ARC is a shareholder. More widely, ARC is proud to fully support GBGB’s welfare strategy, ‘A Good Life for Every Greyhound’.

ARC takes the welfare of all greyhounds affiliated with, and running or trialling at, our stadia very seriously, and invests in a range of initiatives to increase welfare standards and minimise risk. These include an injury recovery scheme for all greyhounds running or trialling at an ARC Stadium, which covers the costs of veterinary services for any injured dog, with our affiliated veterinary practices.

Each ARC stadium is affiliated with at least two local GBGB accredited rehoming centres and makes significant efforts to promote rehoming across all our 21 venues across the country.

In addition, ARC contributes £100 to each British Bred Greyhound Retirement Scheme bond payment for all stadia affiliated greyhounds. The scheme offers a £420 bond for each British bred greyhound to cover rehoming costs on retirement.

For clarity, ARC does not operate any greyhound racing venues in Wales.

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

ARC is fully supportive of the GBGB welfare strategy and the strict licencing requirements that are placed on venues such as ours to operate greyhound racing.

The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill makes it an offence to operate a stadium or similar venue in Wales and use it, or knowingly permit it to be used, for greyhound racing. The Bill also makes it an offence to be involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales. “Greyhound racing” is defined as setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means and includes timing or training a greyhound as it runs around a track. 

The stated policy intention of the Bill is simply to ban greyhound racing in Wales. Whilst the proposed legislation may deliver this objective, Members of the Senedd should be clear that the policy intention and the general principles of the Bill, which focus exclusively on banning greyhound racing, will be detrimental to greyhound welfare. The Bill offers nothing which will promote meeting greyhounds’ welfare needs across their lifetimes – needs which are met, across the Five Domains of animal welfare, through evidence-based policy making and effective enforcement when greyhound racing is regulated by the GBGB, rather than banned.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The stated policy intention is to ban greyhound racing. The Bill offers nothing which will promote meeting greyhounds’ welfare needs across their lifetimes. That makes it explicitly clear that the Bill is not a serious piece of animal welfare legislation but is instead based in animal rights views. Greyhound welfare is best protected when racing occurs in a public space with societal scrutiny and where regulation provides enforceable mechanisms of optimising greyhound welfare for the entirety of the dogs’ lifespan, across the five physical and psychological domains. Greyhound welfare is least well protected when the sport is banned because that runs the risk of greyhound racing occurring illegally, out of public view, with no regulation. Currently, there is only one operational greyhound track in Wales, which is licensed by GBGB.  The Bill to ban greyhound racing will inevitably put greyhound welfare at higher risk than it currently is in Wales because it will result in the cessation of greyhound welfare safeguarding through regulation by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. This regulation, through the GBGB’s Welfare Strategy, combined with GBGB Rules of Racing and evidence-based policies and guidance currently protects the welfare of racing greyhounds for the entirety of their lifespan and across all five physical and psychological Domains of animal welfare.

Some brief examples of the ways in which greyhound welfare is safeguarded through GBGB regulation are provided below at the end of the response to this question. As those examples illustrate, GBGB regulation demands welfare standards which demonstrably provide racing greyhounds with ‘good lives’, as defined in animal welfare science (please refer to GBGB’s short- and medium- term reports on its Welfare Strategy). If the Welsh government is truly committed to improving animal welfare (rather than to meeting the demands of animal rights organisations) then instead of introducing this Bill to meet a very narrow, animal rights-based policy intention of banning greyhound racing it would legislate instead to safeguard animal welfare by maintaining greyhound racing as a legal activity and insisting that in future all greyhound racing in Wales be regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

Brief examples of the ways in which greyhound welfare is safeguarded through GBGB regulation:

As regulator, GBGB ensures that the welfare of racing greyhounds is of paramount importance within licensed racing.  Through their Greyhound Commitment and over 200 Rules of Racing, GBGB seeks to ensure that the health and wellbeing of all registered greyhounds are promoted and protected at all times.

Importantly, GBGB has a zero-tolerance approach to any mistreatment of greyhounds and does not hesitate to take the strongest action against any form of animal mistreatment. Through their investigations team, they explore any concerns regarding welfare and integrity.  They follow a strict disciplinary process to address any breaches of the Rules of Racing, which is overseen by an independent disciplinary panel.  GBGB is prepared to impose the necessary sanctions including a lifetime ban from the sport.

As an indication of their high welfare standards, GBGB is the only UK sports regulator to be accredited by UKAS.  This UKAS standard, which covers both licensed tracks (included all operated by ARC) and greyhound trainers’ residential kennels, exists alongside the BSI PAS 251:2017 technical specification and GBGB’s Code of Practice for Residential Kennels.

In 2022, GBGB launched its long-term welfare strategy, A Good Life for Every Greyhound, which seeks to enhance the welfare standards across the sport.   Developed under the leadership of Professor Madeleine Campbell, who is an EBVS® European Veterinary Specialist and RCVS Specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, this comprehensive and wide-ranging strategy seeks to further optimise the care and protection registered racing greyhounds receive throughout their lives – not just the period they are racing.  The strategy has been externally peer-reviewed by respected veterinarians in the field of animal welfare.  They provide regular updates on progress to the Greyhound Forum which includes representatives from key animal welfare charities such as Battersea Cats and Dogs Home, The Kennel Club and the Greyhound Trust.

Through their Rules of Racing and welfare strategy, welfare standards and protections afforded to racing greyhounds far exceed those that exist for the pet dog population, where there is no monitoring in place to demonstrate welfare standards.

In practice, this means:

Breeding

·         Whilst GBGB’s regulatory remit does not extend to the breeding and rearing of greyhound pups in Britain, GBGB believes it shares responsibility to ensure that all racing greyhounds have the best possible start to their lives.  Through the welfare strategy, GBGB committed to furthering its support of high-welfare British breeding.

·         In 2024, 15.5% of the greyhounds registered with GBGB were from British-bred litters (up from 13.1% in 2021), with the remainder originating from either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.  The overall number of Irish greyhounds entering racing in Britain has decreased by 26% since 2021.  These changes are in alignment with GBGB’s welfare strategy which sought to increase the number of British-bred greyhounds and minimise the potential welfare and biosecurity risks associated with international transportation of greyhounds.  GBGB continues to work closely with Greyhound Racing Ireland (GRI) to ensure the traceability of greyhounds entering GBGB racing from Ireland or returning to Ireland for racing or breeding.

·         In August 2025, GBGB announced that it is developing a registration system for British-bred greyhounds.  This move is intended to streamline the process, support British breeding and ensure greater oversight by GBGB from a greyhound’s birth.

·         GBGB provides education opportunities on breeding and rearing, including a recent live webinar series delivered by Professor Gary England, a leading expert in canine reproduction.

·         GBGB will shortly publish a new comprehensive Code of Practice for Breeders and Rearers of Racing Greyhounds, informed by research field visits to established greyhound breeders and rearers and developed with expert welfare and veterinary input.  This will provide advice and guidance for raising healthy and well-socialised greyhounds and will be shared with our international regulator colleagues to promote best practice.

During their racing career – at the track

·         Under the Rules of Racing, the vehicles trainers use to transport their greyhounds to and from the track must be adequately air-conditioned; since June 2021, when it became a requirement for vehicles to be air-conditioned, over £2 million has been spent within the industry on replacement vehicles or upgrading existing air-conditioning units.

·         There must be at least one veterinary surgeon in attendance at GBGB-licensed racecourses for any races or trials. Their role is to check each greyhound before, during and after they race, monitor disease control and administer emergency care in the event that this becomes necessary.

·         GBGB-licensed stadia benefit from GBGB’s multi-year collaboration with internationally recognised experts STRI.  Each stadium receives four STRI inspections a year which allows experts to assess the track in all seasons.  Through these regular visits, STRI consultants make recommendations designed to optimise the safety of the running surface.  In 2024, STRI conducted 80 visits to GBGB-licensed racecourses. ARC is proud to work closely with STRI across all of our five stadia, and in the recent development of the new track at Dunstall Park.

·         GBGB also has a national Track Liaison Officer who provides assistance to track staff and makes regular visits to stadia during the year.

·         Track staff have access to a regular programme of continuing professional development which covers track preparation and maintenance as well as how to care for greyhounds whilst at the track.

·         In 2024, GBGB published its Track Maintenance Guide – a substantial resource developed through a collaboration between Dr Christian Spring, Group Principal Scientist for STRI, GBGB’s Track Liaison Officer and the GBGB Track sub-committee.  The Guide provides an invaluable continuing education and reference resource for all racecourse stakeholders. Importantly, it not only provides clear guidance on all stages of the track maintenance process – construction and layout, infrastructure, preparation and troubleshooting – but also provides information on where stakeholders can seek expert help and emphasises the need for an evidence-based, scientifically informed and flexible, proactive approach.

·         The continuous improvements in track safety and the provision of veterinary treatment at the track have led to significant improvements in the track injury and fatality rates.  Most notably, between 2018 and 2024, the track fatality rate decreased by 50%, from 0.06% to 0.03% and in 2024, licensed racing saw its lowest ever injury rate of 1.07% – down from 1.21% in 2021.

·         GBGB meticulously and accurately records all injuries sustained at licensed tracks – going beyond what has been requested by Defra.  Not only does this show GBGB’s commitment to transparency and accountability it also allows our Track Liaison Officer and Track Safety Committee to identify any concerning trends and take immediate action to prevent any further injuries.

·         If a greyhound sustains a career-ending injury on a licensed track, they are eligible for financial assistance through our Injury Retirement Scheme (IRS).  Through the IRS, funding is provided towards corrective veterinary treatment for orthopaedic injuries so that, wherever possible, greyhounds can go on to enjoy a full and active life in retirement.  Since the scheme was introduced in 2018, GBGB has paid out over £1.4 million to support the veterinary treatment of registered greyhounds. ARC operates such an injury recovery scheme for all greyhounds either running or trialling at an ARC stadium, which covers the costs of treatment in the event of an injury taking place during racing or trialling.

·         As a result of the IRS, GBGB has seen a dramatic fall in the number of greyhounds put to sleep for economic reasons following an injury sustained while racing.  This figure has fallen from 175 in 2018 to just three in 2024 – a decrease of 98%.  GBGB believes that it is unacceptable for a dog to sleep for economic reasons and remains committed to reducing this number to zero.

·         To see further improvements in this area, Premier Greyhound Racing (PGR), of which ARC is a shareholder, is currently funding two academic research projects at the University of Nottingham specifically looking at injury prevention.  These projects are looking at the causes of injuries in racing greyhounds and how modern technologies could be used to help detect sub-clinical injuries and inform decisions about early treatment and rest.

·         Each GBGB-licensed racecourse is subject to annual inspections as part of GBGB’s wider regulatory programme.  Stadia also receive regular visits throughout the year from GBGB’s Stipendiary Stewards.

·         Each racecourse has access to GBGB’s Track Safety Committee Fund which funds investments into track equipment and safety infrastructure.  In 2024, grants totalling £168,000 were issued for equipment and infrastructure improvements.

·         Tracks must adhere to GBGB’s Hot and Cold Weather Policies, which seek to optimise the comfort and wellbeing of greyhounds during periods of very hot or very cold weather.  Within the policies, which are reviewed annually, GBGB has set out at which temperatures racing must be cancelled.  These limits are based on the latest veterinary advice on maintaining a greyhound’s thermo-neutral zone of between 10°C and 26°C.  The policies also set out the measures that must be taken to keep greyhounds comfortable at the track (e.g. cooling baths, reducing parade times) and when travelling to and from it.

·         To safeguard greyhound welfare and the integrity of the sport, thousands of regulatory samples are taken each year to ensure that greyhound racing is a drug-free sport. Working alongside LGC, a world-leading independent drug surveillance laboratory, and other international regulators, GBGB has developed an effective and modern testing and intelligence programme which acts as a deterrent against the use of prohibited substances.

·         Since 2017, all greyhounds registered by GBGB must have a ‘Point of Registration’ sample to ensure that each greyhound begins its GBGB career free of any long-acting prohibited substances, whilst a mixture of random or intelligence-led race day samples are taken throughout the year across all racecourses.

During their racing career – at their trainers’ kennels

·         Each year, licensed trainers’ residential kennels must receive:

o   A veterinary inspection which examines all aspects of the greyhounds’ care, health and wellbeing;

o   An audit by independent auditors SCI to ensure they meet the standards required by the British Standards Institute’s (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) for greyhound trainers’ residential kennels – PAS 251: 2017.

·         All trainers also receive separate visits to their residential kennels during the year from GBGB Stipendiary Stewards and GBGB Regional Regulatory Vets (RRVs).

·         In January 2025, GBGB’s team of RRVs began conducting their trainers’ Annual Veterinary Kennel Inspection, which was previously carried out by either a veterinarian from the trainer’s local practice or a track veterinarian. The new RRV annual veterinary kennel inspections are in a more thorough format than previously used and include, for example, an inspection of every greyhound accommodated within the kennels – whether or not they are actively racing.

·         Since the launch of the welfare strategy in 2022, there has been a 73.2% increase in the total number of routine GBGB visits to residential kennels.  In 2024, on average, each licensed trainer received three visits to their kennels by GBGB field staff as well as an audit inspection by SCI and an external veterinary kennel inspection.  In addition to routine visits, GBGB carries out risk-led more frequent monitoring visits of specific kennels if it is deemed necessary.

·         Any failures of compliance with the UKAS accredited standards result in improvement notices, and failure to make required improvements means that a trainer does not have their GBGB licence renewed.

·         Licensed trainers have access to the Trainers’ Assistance Fund, which provides grants for trainers to upgrade and improve their residential kennel facilities.  In 2024, £503,910 was awarded via the Trainers’ Assistance Fund for trainers to upgrade their kennel and paddock facilities.

·         In 2020, GBGB introduced – in consultation with animal welfare charities and veterinary professionals – a comprehensive Code of Practice for Residential Kennels which sets out clear rules and guidelines on how greyhounds should be looked after at their trainer’s kennels.  This includes specific requirements around diet, bedding, kennel construction and size, dental care, environmental enrichment as well as daily exercise routines.

·         Licensed trainers have access to continuous professional development, which leverages the latest in scientific research and innovations, in the form of a regular programme of workshops and webinars involving leading veterinarians and academics, including on nutrition and understanding kennel sickness.  To maximise engagement, these courses are delivered free of charge.  Trainers also benefit from the support and expertise of GBGB’s Executive Veterinarian and a team of RRVs who are available to give advice and guidance on any aspect of greyhound welfare as required.

Into Retirement

·         GBGB has full traceability of every racing greyhound throughout their careers. Upon a greyhound’s eventual retirement, all greyhound owners must adhere to GBGB’s Responsible Homing Policy and inform GBGB of the retirement destination of their greyhound. The microchip of retired greyhounds is registered in a pet canine database, ensuring that traceability is maintained after greyhounds retire from racing.

·         Through the Greyhound Retirement Scheme (GRS), GBGB ensures that the financial costs associated with a greyhound’s eventual retirement are secure before their racing career even begins.  At the point of a racing greyhound’s registration with GBGB, the owner must pay £210 towards the GRS Bond.  This sum is kept and then matched by GBGB when the greyhound enters an approved homing centre.  This creates a £420 bond which will help to cover the costs of a greyhound’s stay in a homing centre whilst they await their forever home.

·         As previously stated, ARC also contributes into this fund for all ARC stadia affiliated greyhounds.

·         Since the launch of the GRS in 2020, almost £6 million has been paid in matched funding to GBGB’s network of over 100 approved homing centres.

·         In 2024, GBGB strengthened its follow-up procedures to check that retired greyhounds are settling well into their new placements.  All greyhounds homed privately now receive multiple follow-up communications from GBGB at two, six and twelve months after welcoming their greyhound into their home.

·         To enhance the welfare of those greyhounds remaining at their trainers’ residential kennels while they await homing, with input from the Greyhound Forum, GBGB developed a Guide to Enhancing the Welfare of Retired Greyhounds in Residential Kennels.  These greyhounds also receive visits from GBGB’s Regional Regulatory Vets who have a specific responsibility to check on their welfare.

·         GBGB’s regulatory remit means it has no legal powers to stop a greyhound being exported once they have retired.  Nonetheless, GBGB has worked to strengthen the systems and enforcement which it is able to use to safeguard the welfare of greyhounds during exportation.  In January 2025, new stakeholder guidance around the export of retired greyhounds outside of Great Britain was issued.  This was accompanied by the introduction of a new procedure whereby owners must inform GBGB before the greyhound’s movement abroad using a newly developed form and review system to ensure the necessary due diligence has been carried out regarding the ongoing care of their greyhound.  Since the process began, the majority of applications have been submitted for greyhounds to retire with an existing racing owner, or a new private owner who lives abroad and GBGB has been satisfied that the required due diligence has been carried out.

·         In most cases, greyhounds retiring from the sport go on to make excellent pets and can transition successfully from a kennel environment to life in a domestic setting.  As part of the strategy, Dr Sarah Heath FRCVS, an RCVS and European Veterinary Specialist in Behavioural Medicine, has been providing educational opportunities about how this can best be done for national and international stakeholders within the sport of greyhound racing.  GBGB already supports trainers to enlist the assistance of specialist homing centres who can offer help with these individual greyhounds, but to further this, GBGB is working with Dr Heath to develop a standardised behavioural assessment for racing greyhounds to ensure these greyhounds are given the correct support.

·         As a result of these measures, licensed racing has seen the successful retirement rate improve from 88% in 2018 to 94% in 2024.  This is a significant improvement particularly in the context of the current rehoming crisis affected all breeds of dog.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?


The Bill is intended to prohibit greyhound racing in Wales. Under Section (1) of the Bill a person commits an offence if he/she/they ‘(a) is an operator of a stadium or similar venue in Wales and uses it, or knowingly permits it to be used, for greyhound racing, or (b) is involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales’. 

As detailed in our answers to Q1 and Q2, the provisions of Section 1 of the Bill will inevitably put greyhound welfare at higher risk than it currently is in Wales, because it will result in the cessation of greyhound welfare safeguarding currently provided for the entirety of a greyhound’s lifetime through regulation by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

Under Section 2 of the Bill, ‘“Greyhound racing” means setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means (and this includes timing or training a greyhound as it runs around a track)’.

Section 2 of the Bill will be detrimental to greyhound welfare by increasing the distances which greyhounds have to be transported for training and racing and/or increasing the risk of injury for greyhounds.

There are currently 21 greyhound trainers licensed by GBGB based in Wales. Should the Bill be passed and greyhound racing be banned in Wales those trainers will likely maintain their premises in Wales and continue training but have to take their dogs to England to compete. This will inevitably increase the distances which greyhounds need to travel to race. Since any transportation of animals always results in some stress, however optimal the conditions under which they are transported, this will have a detrimental effect on greyhound welfare.

Training racing greyhounds on a track is an important part of teaching them to navigate a race as safely as possible and thus reduce the risk of injury. Since Section 2 not only bans greyhound racing but also bans timing or training a greyhound around a track, it will either (i) have a detrimental, transport-stress related effect on greyhound welfare by making it necessary for trainers to transport their dogs to England to reduce the risk of injury through familiarising them with running on a track before they race, and / or (ii) have a detrimental effect on greyhound welfare by increasing the risk of injury if Welsh greyhound trainers do not wish to increase the stress on their greyhounds by transporting their greyhounds for training, and are unable to train them on a track in Wales. 

Section 3 of the Bill relates to Offences by bodies corporate etc. ARC does not have any comments on Section 3.

Schedule 1 of the Bill relates to Offences by bodies corporate etc. ARC does not have any comments on Schedule 1.

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

We note that Section 9(h) of Schedule 2 of the Bill prohibits Inspectors exercising a power of entry from seizing a dog. ARC does not support the Bill and believes that the Bill will be detrimental to greyhound welfare for the reasons explained in our responses to Q1-3. However, this prohibition on Inspectors seizing a dog is to be commended in relation to protecting greyhound welfare should the Bill (unfortunately) become law and in a situation where enforcement of the Bill were being attempted.

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Section 5 determines that ‘the […] provisions of this Act (other than Sections 5 and 6) come into force on a day appointed by the Welsh Ministers in an order made by Welsh statutory instrument, but they must be brought into force on a day that is— (a) no sooner than 1 April 2027, and (b) no later than 1 April 2030’.

If The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Billbecomes law then as soon as it became known that the sport of greyhound racing had no future, promoters, stadia, owners, trainers and breeders would immediately exit the sport. This would cause a huge number of greyhounds to simultaneously need homing. As the British Veterinary Association (BVA) stated in its response to the Welsh Government’s consultation on the licensing of animal welfare establishments (page 63) this would have negative impacts on the welfare of huge numbers of animals. Since the announcement of the intention to ban greyhound racing in Wales the BVA has reiterated its concern about the lack of planning by Welsh Government for homing of greyhounds who will exit racing as a result of the ban (for example, https://www.vettimes.com/news/vets/small-animal-vets/greyhound-race-ban-needs-robust-transition-bva-says-after-bill-draft ). GBGB and ARC share the concerns of the BVA and believes that the bringing into force of the provisions of this Bill, should it be enacted, will be detrimental to the welfare of greyhounds and of the wider canine population by flooding rehoming centres at a time when the number of homes being offered to dogs of all breeds in such centres is already significantly reduced due to the cost of living crisis. Those charities who are supporting a ban on greyhound racing in Wales and currently insisting that they will assist with homing the large number of greyhounds who would abruptly exit racing should this Bill become law are simultaneously reporting that their homing centres are already at full capacity in Wales and England (for example, https://www.deeside.com/rspca-warns-of-dog-rehoming-crisis-in-wales/ https://nation.cymru/feature/adopt-dont-shop-welsh-rescue-centres-facing-unprecedented-number-of-dogs-waiting-for-homes/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c930qg9xv9no

https://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/25442589.rspca-hertfordshire-dealing-record-number-dogs/)

In contrast to this situation at homing centres run by charities, adoptions from GBGB Greyhound Retirement Scheme centres in the first 6 months of 2025 were increased by 37% compared to the same period in 2024. At the same time, the number of greyhounds being registered with the GBGB is at an all-time low,  reflecting the sport’s determination to continue moving to a sustainable position where the number of greyhounds entering racing is no greater than the number to whom homes are offered upon retirement. The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and Section 5 in particular will be detrimental to greyhound welfare since it will disrupt the move towards a racing:homing equilibrium by dramatically and suddenly increasing the numbers of greyhounds needing homes. In so doing will cause a very large number of greyhounds to have to wait prolonged periods to find a retirement home, and possibly even to enter homing centres to begin with. It might also reduce the number of places in rehoming centres and of private homes being offered to dogs of non-greyhound breeds.

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

The Bill completely fails to account in any way for meeting the welfare needs of greyhounds across their lifetimes, and specifically fails to account for how the welfare of the very many greyhounds who would abruptly exit racing should this Bill become law will be protected.

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)?

ARC has no view on Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

As explained in the answers to Q1-3 and 5, the policy intention and the Bill, which focus exclusively on banning greyhound racing, will be detrimental to greyhound welfare. Banning greyhound racing in Wales will result in the loss of the comprehensive protection of greyhound welfare across greyhounds’ lifetimes which is currently provided through regulation (including effective enforcement) by the GBGB (and detailed in our responses to Q1-3).

The Bill, should it be enacted, will have an additional and significant adverse effect on greyhound welfare by flooding canine rehoming centres which (by their own admission) are already at full capacity in Wales and England with a very large number of greyhounds who would all exit racing simultaneously.  This will cause a very large number of greyhounds to have to wait prolonged periods to find a retirement home and possibly even to enter homing centres to begin with. It might also reduce the number of places in rehoming centres and of private homes being offered to dogs of non-greyhound breeds.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

It is the view of GBGB and ARC that the Welsh Government have not carried out the necessary collaborative working with the members of their Implementation Group for the Bill.

85 individuals are directly or indirectly employed as a result of the Valley, with the majority looking to lose their source of employment and income. These include the trainers, of which there are 21 GBGB-licence-holders based in Wales, as well as kennel hands, maintenance, camera and hospitality staff.

Detailed in the Economic Impact of Greyhound Racing in the UK (2022) report, UK-wide owners of greyhounds contributed £24.2 million annually into the sport, which would be circa £1.27 million on an individual track basis.

This is to say nothing of the cultural, social and community benefits brought by the Valley Stadium, nor of the historic role that greyhound racing has played as a rural activity in traditionally underserved areas.

Under Cost Savings, the Welsh Government details that by banning greyhound racing, there would be a cost saving of £11,000 per year by not having to correspond with persons calling for a ban. It would be ARC and GBGB’s strong contention that increased correspondence for bans on other sports and activities involving animals would likely follow a ban on greyhound racing, as animal rights groups adjusted the focus of their demands. 

In contrast, if the Welsh Government were to decide that all greyhound racing in Wales in future had to be regulated by GBGB, implementing those higher welfare standards would be at no cost to the Government. As regulator for British licensed greyhound racing, GBGB has put in place and enforces a regulatory system that goes far beyond what is required under the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 which apply in England. Our regulatory and licensing regime offers a proven option for safeguarding the welfare of racing greyhounds in Wales, without any need for additional legislation or extra resource from Welsh public services.

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

ARC believes that this Bill will be extremely detrimental to greyhound welfare. We urge the Welsh Government and Senedd to demonstrate a genuine commitment to animal welfare rather than to animal rights and to withdraw this Bill and legislate instead to safeguard animal welfare by maintaining greyhound racing as a legal activity and insisting that in future all greyhound racing in Wales be regulated by the GBGB.

Implementing higher welfare standards through such legislation would (unlike the proposed legislation to ban greyhound racing, which will anyway be detrimental to greyhound welfare) be at no cost to the Government. As regulator for British licensed greyhound racing, GBGB has put in place and enforces a regulatory system that goes far beyond what is required under the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 which apply in England. This regulatory and licensing regime offers a proven option for safeguarding the welfare of racing greyhounds in Wales, without any need for additional legislation or extra resource from Welsh public services.

Whilst the GBGB and ARC fully respects the devolved nature of animal welfare policy and legislation and the autonomy of the Welsh Government, we respectfully note here the support for optimising greyhound welfare through regulation rather than through banning greyhound racing being shown by the Westminster Government. That Government has confirmed its support for licensed greyhound racing and indicated its satisfaction with the current regulations that are in place.  On 27 February 2025, the Secretary of State of Culture, Media and Sport told the House of Commons:

“We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.”

This followed a statement by Daniel Zeichner MP, the then Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 9 October 2024:

“The welfare of greyhounds in England is protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The 2006 Act allows action to be taken where there is evidence of cruelty to an animal or a failure to provide for that animal’s welfare needs. This includes where greyhounds are raced at greyhound racing tracks, kept at trainers’ kennels, or kept elsewhere as pets, for example.

“Further to these general provisions, specific welfare standards at all greyhound racing tracks in England are laid out in the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. Requirements in the 2010 Regulations include having a veterinary surgeon in attendance while dogs are running (with all greyhounds inspected by the vet before being allowed to run); requiring all greyhounds to be microchipped and earmarked before they can race or trial; and requiring records to be kept by the track of all dogs run or trialled at the track and any dogs injured.

“Standards in the 2010 Regulations are enforced by either the track’s local authority or the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB). The role of the GBGB as a regulator of these standards is independently scrutinised by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

“In addition to its role as an industry regulator, GBGB has also undertaken a number of welfare reforms, including publishing a long term, national welfare strategy in May 2022 – ‘A Good Life for Every Greyhound’. The strategy focuses not only on reducing risks of injury but also developing and implementing new management practices to improve the welfare of greyhounds throughout their lives, including after they have finished racing. The Government is monitoring GBGB’s progress in delivering the strategy and should further measures and protections be required the Government will, of course, consider options which are targeted, effective, and proportionate.”

Reports against the short- and medium-term objectives of the GBGB’s Welfare Strategy can be found here: https://gbgb-prod-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/08140710/A-Good-Life-for-Every-Greyhound-Progress-Report-October-2025.pdfand here: https://gbgb-prod-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/10101528/Delivering-A-Good-Life-for-Every-Greyhound-Progress-Report-Dec-2024.pdf).

 

PGRWB 28 Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

Ymateb gan | Response from: Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

The stated intent of the policy was to ban the act of Greyhound racing in Wales, this would require legislative change, as highlighted in the Welsh Government’s Explanatory Memorandum. However as highlighted in our responses to further questions we have several concerns and questions on specific aspects of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is clear, and Battersea’s sole concern remains the welfare of the Greyhounds involved in racing as the legislation prior to, during and after implementation.

2. What are your views on the terms used in the Bill, whether defined or not? In particular, are they workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Battersea would welcome further clarity on how the Bill intents to stop all types of Greyhound racing. For example the Bill interprets Greyhound racing as “…running around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means…”. Whilst this will stop organised racing, it would not necessarily stop impromptu racing in a field around a temporary track with a different type of lure. If the intention is to stop all Greyhound racing, then we would suggest the Bill looks beyond that which is currently undertaken in Wales, and looks to consider preventing lower welfare alternative forms of racing.

Similarly, clarity would be welcome as to why the Bill is targeted at operators of a stadium or organisers of events, and does not include participants. If the aim is to disincentivise the activity, then everyone who undertakes the activity should be prohibited from doing so. For example, after the ban there may be cases of greyhound racing taking place under the guise of exercising the dogs. If this does not take place at a stadium, it will potentially be difficult for enforcers to identify who organised the event, and therefore no available enforcement for a prohibited activity. It is further hard to argue after all that it should be legal to attend or gamble on an activity that is illegal to carry out in Wales.

3. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 1 – 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill -Prohibition of Greyhound Racing? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

3. As highlighted in our response to question 2, Battersea would welcome clarity as to why individuals undertaking greyhound racing are not included in Paragraph 1 (1) of persons committing an offence. Whilst it is important under the Animal Welfare Act that Greyhounds are properly exercised, there needs to be a distinction between what constitutes exercise and a race meet, to ensure that this does not create a loophole in the legislation.

Whilst the potential use of an unlimited fine is welcome, Battersea is concerned that no mention of links to other enforcement provisions are not mentioned. For example, in cases where animal welfare has been compromised a fine may not be appropriate, instead the enforcer should instead consider if prosecution through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021[18] and Animal Welfare Act 2006.[19] Similarly, there will need to be robust guidance on the use of the unlimited fines.

4. What are your views on the provisions set out in section 4 and Schedule 2 of the Bill - Enforcement? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

The Bill itself provides in Battersea’s view a robust description of enforcers’ powers of enforcement. However, there is no mention of burden of proof for prosecution, or what is considered suitable evidence. Whilst this shouldn’t be on the face of the Bill, there is little information provided in the Explanatory Memorandum. Battersea is similarly concerned that there does not appear to be any planned provisions for training of enforcers on their new powers under the Bill. This will be important, and potentially carry financial cost.

In the Explanatory Memorandum in chapter 8, the impact on Local Authorities, it only appears to discuss impacts to Caerphilly County Borough Council, where the current Valley track is located. This does not guarantee that all trainers working and racing at the track are based in that Council area. However, the ban would extend to all of Wales, therefore there will be an impact on all Local Authorities as they will have a duty to take any action against illegal activity, either at a stadium or not.

5. What are your views on the provisions set out in sections 5- 6 of the Bill – General? In particular, are the provisions workable and will they deliver the stated policy intention?

Battersea is concerned over the significant timescale in Section 5. With only one track, and an implementation group already working, it is unclear why a maximum of three years will be needed for the Bill to come into force. It will be critical once the Bill is enacted for a clear timeline for the ban to be brought into force. To ensure that the welfare of Greyhounds is safeguarded through the process it is critical to have a clear timetable, to ensure the safe rehoming of Greyhounds from the track.

There is sufficient rehoming capacity to rehome all of the Greyhound currently racing, through the Welsh Greyhound Rehoming Partnership, of which Battersea is a member. This partnership was set up following the announcement of a ban, to ensure capacity. Since the announcement and the beginning of August this year members of this partnership have facilitated the rehoming of 52 Greyhounds who had their last race at or were located at Valley stadium, however, the true number who have raced at Valley may be higher. It is also likely that without a timetable these dogs have been replaced, and other dogs may now have been recruited into racing.

6. What are the potential barriers to the implementation of the Bill’s provisions and how does the Bill take account of them?

As highlighted in the previous question, clear timelines for the implementation of the Bill are needed to ensure Greyhound welfare. From the rehoming perspective this is to ensure that organisations such as Battersea can allocate rehoming provisions to Greyhounds, which will potentially not all be rehomed to owners in Wales.

In Chapter 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum (8.56) it is highlighted that not all rehoming organisations are able to receive the bond from the Greyhound Retirement Scheme, if they are in favour of a ban. Although this is technically out of scope of the Bill, Battersea would advocate that the bond is made available to all organisations that are aiding in the rehoming of Greyhounds from the GBGB track, as this will help them with the associated increase in costs.

7. How appropriate are the powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, as set out in Chapter 5 of Part 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum)?

Battersea does not take a view on this question.

8. Are there any unintended consequences likely to arise from the Bill?

Battersea does not take a view on this question.

9. What are your views on the Welsh Government’s assessment of the financial implications of the Bill, as set out in Part 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum?

Battersea does not take a view on the economic impacts of the Bill.

10. Are there any other issues you would like to raise about the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum or any related matters?

Battersea would highlight point 8.47 in the Explanatory Memorandum, where it is raised that with the prohibition of Greyhound racing in Wales there would be a gradual decline in the requirement for Greyhound rehoming. This is unlikely to happen given Greyhound racing will continue in England with an estimate 10,000 dogs involved in the sport.[20] Indeed, with no sister legislation planned in England it is possible that the overall amount of racing will hardly diminish if more racing takes place in England. This is coupled with the fact that for the last two years, over 1,500 dogs per year[21] have been retained by the owner, potentially awaiting a rehoming place.

 

PGRWB 29 League Against Cruel Sports

Ymateb gan: Y Gynghrair yn Erbyn Chwaraeon Creulon | Response from: League Against Cruel Sports

1. What are your views on the general principles of the Bill, and whether there is a need for legislation to deliver the stated policy intention?

The League Against Cruel Sports welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee consultation on the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill.

The League has long campaigned for a ban on greyhound racing and consistently highlighted the harm inflicted on greyhounds by the industry. As early as 2014, our report “The State of Greyhound Racing in Great Britain: A Mandate for Change” uncovered deeply concerning issues, including poorly maintained tracks, excessive racing schedules leading to serious injuries such as broken backs and limbs, the abandonment of unwanted dogs, and, tragically, cases of greyhounds being killed.

In addition, the Welsh Government’s consultation on the licensing of animal welfare establishments, activities and exhibits, including greyhound racing, demonstrated strong public support for ending the practice. Almost two-thirds (64.69%) of respondents favoured either a phased or an immediate ban on greyhound racing. Of the 1,180 total responses, 292 came from League Against Cruel Sports supporters, with 234 of those responses originating from people in Wales. This clearly highlights how strongly the Welsh public cares about preventing needless suffering, injuries, and deaths of greyhounds.

The League fully supports the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill and its overall intent to prohibit the commercial racing, training, and trialling of greyhounds at stadiums and similar venues in Wales. This is a particularly positive step, as it not only addresses commercial racing but also prevents dogs from being schooled or trialled in Wales for use in races elsewhere.

There are several key areas where we believe the legislation should go further to ensure it achieves its aims effectively and without unintended consequences.

Timescale for Implementation

The League strongly supports the position of the Cut the Chase Coalition and other animal welfare organisations preparing to rehome affected dogs, in calling for greyhound racing in Wales to be ended within 12 months of the legislation coming into force.

In its current form, the Bill could allow greyhound racing to continue until 2030, which is far too long. Each additional year that racing remains legal will result in more dogs being bred, raced, injured, and killed. A drawn-out transition period of up to four years would also enable the replenishment of racing stocks, putting even more animals at risk and placing further strain on rescue and rehoming organisations.

Evidence from both Wales and abroad shows that the longer a phase-out period is allowed, the greater the welfare risks become:

Alarmingly, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New Zealand (SPCA) expressed concern that in the penultimate year of racing (2024 – 2025) before the ban takes effect, injuries to greyhounds rose sharply: more than 800 dogs were injured, including 114 broken bones, and 17 deaths. This demonstrates that racing can often intensify when under threat, and swift implementation is therefore important to prevent similar outcomes.

To illustrate this point, Wales’s last remaining track, Valley Greyhound Stadium, has already indicated plans to increase the number of race days. This could heighten risks to greyhounds as the volume of races and betting opportunities rise in the lead-up to the end of racing.

By contrast, experience shows that track closures can be delivered effectively within shorter periods. For example, the Swindon Abbey Stadium closure in England is set to complete a full wind-down within nine months of its closure announcement in March 2025.

The Wales Greyhound Partnership (WGP) was established shortly after the ban was announced in February and brings together nine animal welfare organisations, including members of the Cut the Chase Coalition. The partnership currently has the capacity to rehabilitate and rehome up to 258 dogs, with an average rehoming time of just two months. Since its formation, 120 greyhounds have already been successfully rehomed, clearly demonstrating that it is both realistic and achievable to rehome dogs affected by the ban within a much shorter timeframe than that currently provided for in the legislation.

The passing of the Bill in 2026 could see racing end in Wales by 1 of April 2027. A clear and firm end date would give both the industry and the rehoming sector the certainty they need to prepare for rehoming responsibly, while ensuring dogs are not exposed to further harm.

Strengthening Enforcement and Preventing Unintended Consequences

The League welcomes the Bill’s proposal for unlimited fines, which would give magistrates the appropriate and necessary flexibility to impose meaningful penalties that act as a genuine deterrent against illegal racing and minimise the risk of repeat offences.

The proposed legislation currently covers the operator or track/similar venue and any persons involved in organising greyhound racing. This risks leaving key individuals who are responsible for greyhounds taking part in racing, outside the scope of enforcement. To mitigate any unintended consequences that could arise such as the facilitation of illegal/underground racing, we feel it is important that the legislation is applicable to individuals, including trainers and owners, of any greyhound raced or trialled in Wales, as well as track operators/owners.

As currently drafted, the Bill defines greyhound racing as dogs running around a track in pursuit of a mechanical lure. However, the meaning of “track” is not defined. Whilst it is understandable that the Welsh Government wishes to avoid inadvertently capturing everyday dog exercise or activities such as fun runs at agricultural shows, the lack of a clear definition creates the potential for loopholes. For example, it could allow straight-track racing to continue legally.

Running around oval-shaped tracks and negotiating bends at speeds of up to 40 miles per hour is inherently dangerous for greyhounds. However, other factors such as the starting box, the lure mechanism, and the quality of track preparation and maintenance also all contribute to the likelihood of serious injury. This is why clear definitions are essential to prevent loopholes that allow dangerous commercial racing to continue.

Clear definitions, appropriate enforcement, and robust penalties are all crucial to ensure that this legislation achieves its purpose and that no opportunities remain for greyhound racing to continue in a way that puts greyhounds at risk of injury.

Conclusion

The Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill marks a pivotal moment for animal welfare in Wales. By ensuring the ban is fully implemented within 12 months of the Act coming into force, Wales can lead the UK in ending this outdated and inhumane industry. As seen in New Zealand, when change is needed, people and organisations come together to make it happen — Wales can do the same. We urge the Committee to recommend strengthening the Bill to ensure a swift and effective transition away from greyhound racing that prioritises the welfare, safety, and future of every greyhound affected.

 


[1] Greyhound Board of Great Britain (2025) Injury and Retirement data. Available at: https://www.gbgb.org.uk/welfare-care/injury-and-retirement-data/ Accessed 6th October 2025.

[2] Greyhound Board of Great Britain (2025) Injury and Retirement data. Available at: https://www.gbgb.org.uk/welfare-care/injury-and-retirement-data/ Accessed 6th October 2025.

[3] Greyhound Board of Great Britain (2025) Our Racecourses. Available at: https://www.gbgb.org.uk/racing/race-courses/ Accessed 6th October 2025.

[4] Greyhound Star. (2023) Wales’s Valley Stadium Granted GBGB Licence. Available at: Wales’s Valley Stadium Granted GBGB Licence - Greyhound Star | News from the Greyhound Industry. Accessed 6th October 2025

[5] Hope Rescue (2022) Amazing Greys. Available upon request.

[6] Petitions Committee (2022) Ban on Greyhound Racing in Wales. Available at https://business.senedd.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=38716&Opt=0. Accessed 6th October 2025

[7] Wales Greyhound Partnership (2025) Internal Rehoming Data.

[8] Wales Greyhound Partnership (2025) Internal Rehoming Data.

[9] BBC News (2025) No more greyhound racing for town stadium. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w13ggvq5do. Accessed 6th October 2025

[10] Radio New Zealand (2025) Finishing line in sight for greyhound racing. Available at: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/570512/finishing-line-in-sight-for-greyhound-racing. Accessed 6th October 2025

[11] Guardian (2025) Tasmanian premier vows to end greyhound racing as he woos crossbench to back minority government. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/aug/10/tasmanian-premier-vows-to-end-greyhound-racing-as-he-woos-crossbench-to-back-minority-government. Accessed 6th October 2025

[12] 65% of respondents agreed that the Welsh Government should introduce a phased ban on greyhound racing within the Licensing of animal welfare establishments, activities and exhibits Consultation.

[13] Welsh Government (2025) Licensing of animal welfare establishments, activities and exhibits. Available at: https://www.gov.wales/licensing-animal-welfare-establishments-activities-and-exhibits. Accessed 6th October 2025

[14] The fate of former racing greyhounds and working lurchers in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales All Party Group for Animal Welfare in association with Greyhound Rescue Wales, 2001.

[15] A Better Bet for Greyhounds, a submission to Welsh Assembly Government in view of proposals to introduce regulations and a code of practice for greyhounds racing in Wales, Wales Greyhound Forum 2008.

[16] Now the “Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010”.

[17] Voluntary Code of Practice, the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds (Wales), Animal Welfare Network Wales, 2021.

[18] Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021

 

[19] Animal Welfare Act 2006

[20] Greyhound+Forum+160625+-+Summary.pdf

[21] 2018-2024-Injury-Retirement-Summary-FINAL.pdf