Open Letter to DFM

9th October 2025

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies MS

Greyhound Racing Ban – Senedd and Committee Contributions

I watched with interest your recent contributions in both the Siambr and before the Culture Committee regarding your proposals to ban greyhound racing.

Firstly, I must admit that I was disappointed to see your comment that you had “recently” been invited to the Valley. While we are pleased that you have indicated you are now keen to visit, the invitation to visit us has been extended to you on at least 10 different occasions, whether by us or the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB), through both briefings and letters we have sent since your appointment. All of these have been either ignored or declined. I feel it would be remiss of you not to correct the record on this.

Secondly, it was disheartening and indeed concerning to see a considerable amount of inaccurate and misleading information disseminated about the sport through your statements both in Plenary and in Committee. Our disappointment is particularly acute given the lengths I feel we, and other representatives for licensed greyhound racing, have gone to offer your office reliable information on our sport. It is crucial that decisions of such consequence as the proposed ban on greyhound racing are grounded in accurate data and a fair representation of the facts, so I have set out below our response to many of the claims made during these two sessions.

1. Misrepresentation of Consultation Support

Far from the “thousands upon thousands” of submissions you referenced, just 1,100 responded to the consultation representing under 0.04% of the Welsh population. This cannot be considered a demonstration of “strong public concern”. Furthermore, your own Government analysis found that more than 40% of responses supporting a ban (28.32% of all responses) were duplicates of a campaign submission. When these are excluded, only 36% supported a phased ban, while 35% opposed or were undecided. Over half (55.5%) actually supported a licensing scheme for greyhound racing.

2. Misleading Use of Injury and Fatality Data

You cited raw numbers of fatalities across all tracks, but failed to provide the necessary context to interpret these figures. As was correctly pointed out during the Senedd debate, 99.97% of greyhound runs conclude safely. The fatality rate in greyhound racing is significantly lower than in horseracing—eight times lower overall and nineteen times lower than jump racing. Likewise, the rate of fatalities in greyhound racing has either decreased or remained steady each year since 2017. It is highly misleading to focus on absolute figures without considering fatality rates, which indicate the actual risk to the animal.

You also suggested that more races at a track logically increase the “propensity” for injuries and fatalities. There is no evidence to suggest that the likelihood of injury or fatality per dog per race changes, regardless of the number of races. The rate of fatalities has not increased with more races, and in fact, injury rates reached a record low in 2024, the first year of complete data for Valley Greyhound Stadium.

3. Homing Challenges

While 94% of ex-racing greyhounds were successfully retired last year, this should not be misinterpreted as 94% of greyhounds immediately being found homes. While GBGB has important and impactful schemes and campaigns in place to drive up the number of homes being found, greyhounds are not immune from the broader national homing crisis affecting all animals, which has seen organisations, including the RSPCA, having record numbers of dogs in their care.

I was also disappointed to see your characterisation of greyhounds as being ‘surrendered’ to homing centres. Unlike most animals who enter into rehoming centres, greyhounds entering approved centres are accompanied by a £420 bond to contribute to homing costs, and must be spayed/neutered and have any veterinary and dental work complete prior to being moved into an approved centre. This makes the situation for racing greyhounds, and the impact of taking in an ex-racing greyhound compared to an abandoned animal, incomparable to that of an abandoned animal.

4. Inaccurate Statements on Track Closures and Homing Impact

You referenced Swindon Stadium as having closed, and suggested this has increased pressure on animal welfare charities. Swindon Stadium remains operational until the end of the year, and there is no evidence of a surge in retired greyhounds or increased pressure on local homing charities. Almost all greyhounds of racing age are expected to continue to race at other stadia, and GBGB data does not show a noteworthy increase in overall retirements from Swindon this year.

Thirdly, there are several other concerns I feel we must raise about the laying of the Bill and the process thus far which we feel has been rushed, unfair and politically motivated.

1. Social and Economic Impacts of Valley Greyhound Stadium

An official said at the Committee hearing that “anecdotal information, from what we've heard from the area, is that people living there don't go” and it was on several occasions indicated that no economic data for the Valley had been provided, or collected by the Welsh Government. The dependence on anecdotes and absence of formal research on the cultural and economic value of tracks like Valley Stadium further highlights the rushed nature of this legislation and the lack of engagement with those who are dependent on the Valley, whether for employment or leisure.

At several meetings of the Implementation Group I, alongside Richard Brankley from SIS, have provided oral evidence about the economic contribution of the Valley including figures on our direct employment, employees dependent on our operations (e.g. trainers and kennelhands), the value of our media contract and attendances at our meetings. Given the importance you have placed on the work of the implementation Group within your contributions, I was disappointed not to see these discussions referenced in your discussions of the Bill’s impact.

2. Ethical Arguments

You cite ethical concerns as “we are not ending those injuries and fatalities that are a direct result of racing greyhounds”. This appears to indicate the Welsh Government is holding greyhound racing to an impossible standard where there are no injuries or fatalities in sport. This is a view apparently reserved for greyhound racing, with other animal sports, such as horseracing, not facing such scrutiny despite posing a greater risk to animals involved.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the basis for this legislation. given the powerful testimony of Members such as Peter Fox MS who spoke last week about the impact an in-person visit had on his ability to form fair, informed views on the welfare standards in place the Valley, I remain disappointed that you did not take the time to visit our community before introducing this legislation. However, I hope we can arrange a visit as soon as diaries permit, and use this as an opportunity to discuss these points further.

Kind Regards,

Katie Bennison: Promoter, Valley Greyhound Stadium