This week, greyhound advocates and adopters assembled at a parliamentary reception hosted by Neil Duncan-Jordan MP. Our organisation, international greyhound protection group GREY2K USA Worldwide, jointly released a report entitled Reaching the Finish Line, alongside the League Against Cruel Sports. It is the most comprehensive policy argument in favour of phasing out greyhound racing in the UK ever assembled.
The timing of this release coincides with reporting that there are Labour MPs, as well as sympathetic Labour Ministers, urging Keir Starmer to follow Scotland and Wales and call time on greyhound racing.
It is our belief that it is now time for the Liberal Democrats to adopt a party position of banning greyhound racing. After all, this is both the mainstream consensus and in line with Lib Dem compassionate instincts on animal welfare and gambling harm. Polling in both Scotland and Wales showed approximately 60% support for ending greyhound racing versus 20% opposition.
Further, Lib Dems are already leading on this issue. Jane Dodds MS played an integral role in securing the Welsh ban and Liz Jarvis MP is carrying the torch in Westminster. Her Early Day Motion calling for an end has 34 signatories, including 22 Lib Dems.
The evidence base for a ban is also clear. Animal welfare experts in Scotland determined that racing greyhounds sustain more traumatic injuries than companion greyhounds and that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) is incapable of safeguarding their welfare.
For most of these dogs, the journey begins in Ireland, where they must survive an initial cull of thousands of greyhounds that are deemed too slow. They are then transported from Ireland to the UK, where hundreds are lost.
The remaining greyhounds are then subjected to predictable, preventable injuries and deaths on dangerous tracks, whilst otherwise being confined. Finally, dogs that advance to the last stage are offloaded onto charities that are already at capacity. Charities and adopters – not the GBGB or gambling companies – incur the majority of rest of life care costs.
It is no surprise that 2022 polling found that only 1% of the public follow and participate in greyhound racing and consider it very important to British culture. Suggestions that the cruelties of greyhound racing are resonant with working-class people in modern Britain are simply unfounded and insulting.
With Reform signaling that they intend to misguidedly campaign in support of greyhound racing, the Lib Dems can stake a policy position that is both the right thing to do and smart politics.
In every way, standing up for these dogs as a united front is a good bet.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
* Patrick Baga is Director of Advocacy and Research at GREY2K USA Worldwide
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
8 Comments
Interesting argument, it presents a clear animal welfare case against greyhound racing.
Not surprisingly – an attack on a working class pursuit all in the name of a fashionable bandwagon some in the left have jumped on.
If they are serious about animal welfare then the outlawing of non stun slaughter should be top of the list by a mile.
To be clear the demand that the use of a particular domesticated animal is banned is tantamount to a demand that that animal should be exterminated.
So the comparison with ‘other greyhounds’ is not really the point. Why not compare welfare standards for any domesticated animal with those suffered/enjoyed by wild animals? We don’t seek to exterminate any wild animals for their own welfare after all, do we? And yet their lives can be nasty, brutish and short.
As a liberal, I’m instinctively wary of reaching for a ban as the first tool out of the box. But instinct isn’t principle, and sometimes the evidence demands you follow the argument where it leads.
This is one of those cases. When an industry imposes serious, predictable harm on sentient beings who cannot consent, and when self-regulation has repeatedly and demonstrably failed to address it, intervention isn’t illiberal. It’s overdue. The work my MP Liz Jarvis is doing in Westminster on this deserves the full backing of the party.
But if we’re honest about the principle we’re applying here, we should be uncomfortable stopping at greyhound racing. And for once, I find myself agreeing with @Craig: if we’re serious about animal welfare, we shouldn’t be selective about where we apply it. The same logic applies to live animal exports and to factory farming conditions that would horrify most of the public if they were to see them. Commercial interests profiting from suffering that animals cannot consent to, and regulators unwilling or unable to stop it. Those industries are bigger, better connected, and harder to move against.
Supporting a greyhound racing ban is the right call. But the Lib Dems should say openly that the same framework demands we go further, and start making that case too. Selective application of a principle isn’t really a principle at all. It’s just picking the fights that feel safe.
We can do better than that.
In 2004 the Hunting Act banned hare coursing. Although this is now a criminal offence it still goes on and attracts those involved in other criminal activity such as firearm and drug dealing. It puts farmers and rural dwellers at risk. Banning something does not necessarily eliminate the activity. In 2023, about 30 offenders were sentenced, for trespassing in pursuit of hares with dogs, with 75% of these people receiving a fine between £250 and £500. The suffering of animals both dogs and hares continues.
https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/mammals/hare-coursing-what-it-is-and-why-its-illegal
“Not surprisingly – an attack on a working class pursuit all in the name of a fashionable bandwagon some in the left have jumped on.
If they are serious about animal welfare then the outlawing of non stun slaughter should be top of the list by a mile.”
I’ll bite! If you walk around my area you’ll come across more than a few working class people who have rescued ex-racing greyhounds. Greyhound racing isn’t all that liked, and the way in which former racing dogs are treated is generally seen as pretty low.
As for non stun slaughter, I assume you are aware that 80% of Halal meat IS stunned, but that precisely 0% of Kosher meat is stunned?
Adam – I assume you realise just how many animals that entails ? 20% is in the millions.
If you’re serious about animal welfare then this barbaric medieval practice should be outlawed, but the reason it’s not is political expediency. As for greyhound racing – we know the do gooders won’t stop there – it’ll be horseracing next.
@Craig, I’m glad we agree that political expediency is a poor substitute for principle on animal welfare. That’s exactly the point I was making.
But I’m struggling to follow the logic. You’d use the ban hammer on religious practice to protect animals, but not on a commercial industry that profits from their suffering. That’s not a consistent position, it’s just a hierarchy of which practices you personally find acceptable.
And as for “the do gooders won’t stop at greyhounds, it’ll be horseracing next.” If the same principle applies, maybe it should be. That’s not a slippery slope, that’s just following the argument honestly.