Leading owner highlights flaws in Welsh Government's racing ban

Let the fightback begin

A leading owner has raised serious questions about how the decision to ban greyhound racing in Wales was made.

Greyhound Racing UK has teamed up with Stefan Wells in opposing the ban after his letters to the powers that be exposed gaping holes in their arguments against the sport.

His relentless fight against the lies and mistruths perpetuated by those who are anti-greyhound racing led him to making a freedom of information request, with the results identifying a glaring lack of due diligence by the Senedd and Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies, who is also Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs.

When the ban was announced, Wells wrote to Animal Welfare Wales, the branch of the Welsh Senedd for answers to questions. Those questions and replies are as follows:

The number of visits that were made to the Valley Greyhound Track by ministers to hear from the owners and staff.

None

The number of visits that Huw Irranca-Davies made to the Valley Greyhound track to hear from trainers, owners and staff.

None

The number of visits that were made to greyhound trainer’s premises in Wales by ministers to hear from trainers, owners and staff.

None

The number of visits that Huw Irranca-Davies made to greyhound trainer’s premises in Wales to hear from trainers, owners and staff.

None

Therefore, the Welsh Government themselves have now confirmed everything that greyhound racing fans already feared – that in-depth research was not carried out ahead of the ban.

How a decision of this size can be made when only one side of the argument has been heard is quite remarkable. Given such a lack of research, how can the Senedd be so sure that they have made the correct decision by banning greyhound racing?

Such an apparent lack of thorough and proper investigation ahead of the ban automatically leads to questions over ulterior motives.

What the greyhound racing needs is a full and transparent discussion about the future of the sport, involving all stakeholders on both sides of the fence, before any conclusion can be reached. Those involved in greyhound racing are in no doubt that the ban would not have come to pass if this had been done.

Wells has also made an official complaint to about Irranca-Davies.

The ministerial code says that holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

The argument from Wells was clear. 'The Welsh Government's own Summary of Consultation Responses (to the public consultation on animal welfare and specifically greyhound racing) highlighted the lack of evidence to support the case for a ban on the sport. The summary made clear there has been a coordinated campaign against licensed greyhound racing, seeking to drown out the voice of local people including those whose livelihoods rely in the sport.'

A reply from the office of the First Minister stated that 'she (the First Minister) is of the view that the Deputy First Minister reached his decision responsibly, after careful thought and taking into account a range of factors, and she cannot agree that the Deputy First Minister acted in a way which would be a breach of the Ministerial Code.'

The reply went on to say. that 'the Deputy First Minister is also setting up an Implementation Group which will consider the various possible approaches to the ban and help to identify the best way forward.' 

Hopefully, this leads to discussions and meetings with those involved in the sport, especially the likes of Wells and Greyhound Racing UK. With a voice and a level playing field, arguments as to why the decision to ban the sport is ill-judged and misinformed can be heard. Maybe then, common sense can prevail.