House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Apr 1990

Column 841

New Clause 5

Dog registration

(1) For the purposes of protecting the environment, the Secretary of State shall by order, in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) below, make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.

(2) In making an order the Secretary of State shall provide, inter alia, for the scheme to be administered by local authorities, and for the fixing of registration fees, including such variations as may be prescribed, to be paid by the owners or keepers of dogs to the relevant authorities.

(3) An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(4) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs. (5) The Secretary of State shall not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with paragraph (6) below.

(6) Any order made under this section shall be exercisable under statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section "Local Authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council, and in Scotland means a District or Island Council.'.-- [Dame Janet Fookes.]

Brought up, and read the First time .

10.15 pm

Dame Janet Fookes (Plymouth, Drake) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker : With this we may take new clause 57-- Dog Registration No. 2 --

(1) For the purposes of protecting the environment, the Secretary of State shall by order, in accordance with paragraphs (6) and (7) below, make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.

(3) In preparing any orders under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to :

(a) the efficacy of existing dog control measures,

(b) the merits of creating additional offences with respect to the causing or permitting of dogs to stray, and

(c) the levels and types of penalties for dog control offences. (4) An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(5) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.

Column 842

(6) The Secretary of State shall not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with sub-section (7) below, and may subsequently lay such amending orders as he may deem appropriate from time to time.

(7) An order made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of parliament.

(8) In this section "Local Authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council and in Scotland means a District or Island Council.'.

Dame Janet Fookes : The new clause is in the names of Opposition as well as Conservative Members. It has cross-party support. I shall not seek to move the other clause that stands in my name ; I shall concentrate on new clause 5.

I am an unrepentant advocate of dog registration, having been convinced some 15 years ago that greater restrictions and control of dogs were absolutely essential. At that time I sought to revamp the dog licence as it was then. I am nothing if not persistent. I hope that I shall carry the day, but I give due notice to the Government that if I do not I shall continue to work for something that I believe to be right and practical.

New clause 5 is an enabling clause. I do not intend to go into the details of what the precise level of the registration fee might be. There is a good reason for that. I believe that it is more important to establish the general principles, and then to allow all interested parties--on the assumption that the clause is carried--to get together with the Government to work out a practical system.

The reason for that is partly that there are perfectly good alternative ways of doing things, and partly that a full detailed scheme could come back to the House in the form of an order, so that the House could pass judgment on it. I am not asking hon. Members to swallow everything unseen ; I ask them to accept the principle that each dog should be registered, together with the name and address of the owner, that that scheme should be administered by the local authorities--primarily the district councils or their counterparts--and that there should be fines for those who fail to register. Hon. Members will be aware of the powerful campaign recently mounted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals--

Mr. Ian Bruce : A disgraceful campaign.

Dame Janet Fookes : I strongly disagree. The RSPCA waged a low-key campaign-- [Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members would do me the courtesy of listening. The RSPCA has waged a low-key campaign for the past 15 years. It found that trying to do things quietly and reasonably in conjunction with many other bodies had no effect on successive Governments. Let me make it clear that, although the campaign has been mounted by the RSPCA, it has the wholehearted support of several other organisations, including the Joint Committee on Pets in Society, of which the RSPCA is a founder and constituent member, and it embraces several organisations, notably the Association of District Councils. It also has the full support of the National Farmers Union, which some Conservative Members may regard as a respectable campaigning body. I have not seen eye to eye with the

Column 843

NFU on several issues, but on this we are at one. I have here a long list, which hon. Members will be glad to hear I shall not read out, of those who agree with the proposal.

Hon. Members may be sceptical about the efficacy of or reasons for the scheme. I welcome some of the Government's commitments to changes in the law to achieve greater control, but it is essential that one is able to identify the owner of a dog. That is why it is important that each dog is registered with its own identification number, which can be linked to a computer. That is very much easier in these days of computerised systems, and I see no reason why that should be a bar to a perfectly workable system.

A revamped dog licensing scheme operates in Northern Ireland. If, as the Department of the Environment claims, it is not much good, or words to that effect, it amazes me that it allows it to continue. The chief environmental health officer of Belfast, whom I had the pleasure of hearing recently, believes that it is useful. I shall quote from a paper that he gave at a recent conference : "My experience over the last 5 years leads me to the conclusion that the Northern Ireland Dog Control legislation is steadily bringing about a real improvement in dog control in Belfast"--

not the easiest city in which to enforce anything. He continues : "Enforcement and education hand in hand is, I believe, beginning to work".

He points out that, although not all the problems have been solved, the scheme is worth while.

In response to a written parliamentary question on 1 March, the Under- Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the scheme "is working well". Does that mean that one arm of the Government is not speaking to the other?

Mr. Ian Bruce : The RSPCA states that 1,000 dogs are being killed every day because we have no dog registration scheme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that about 10,000 dogs were being destroyed before the registration scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland, but that the same number are being destroyed today?

Dame Janet Fookes : I should like to obtain further information on that point. The Irish equivalent of the RSPCA is convinced that improvements have resulted from the scheme. The Ulster Farmers Union in Northern Ireland believes that there has been a marked decrease in livestock worrying, which is one of the reasons why the scheme was introduced. I shall obtain further information about the precise figures for Northern Ireland and give them to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).

Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden) : In England, 10,000 farm animals are worried by dogs.

Dame Janet Fookes : I am not sure what the purpose of that intervention was, unless it was in support of my contention.

Mr. Mills : I am giving my hon. Friend my full support.

Dame Janet Fookes : I thank my hon. Friend. One never knows where one's friends and opponents are.

This is why the National Farmers Union in England is so keen to have this system. It is extremely anxious about

Column 844

the worrying of livestock, which creates much economic damage, quite apart from the damage that it causes to the animal concerned.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I greatly welcome the new clause. Is the hon. Lady aware that monitoring of the number of dogs going up Snowdon during the summer has shown that as many as 200 dogs a day go up one path alone? With half a dozen paths, it is estimated that 1, 000 dogs a day go up. The substantial danger in terms of worrying sheep and dirt, which affects children, adds another dimension.

Dame Janet Fookes : Perhaps I may deal with one aspect that worries some people--the fee. This is one reason why I have not attempted in the new clause to set a fee.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Why not?

Dame Janet Fookes : If my hon. Friend will do me the honour of listening, I shall tell him why not.

It is possible to set different fee levels depending on whether one wants a one-off fee for the life of a dog ; whether one wants a fee on an annual basis, as used to happen with dog licensing ; whether one wishes, as I do, to have a much lower fee for those who take the trouble to get their dogs neutered or bitches spayed, which very much helps in control ; or whether one has exemptions or partial exemptions for working dogs or the dogs of retirement pensioners. One can use many figures. I suggest that the provisions should be embodied in an order, which would come back to the House for it to say yea or nay. That is the best way to approach the matter. The Association of District Councils believes that it could run a scheme involving a one-off fee of £15 to £20 for a dog. It is so keen to run this scheme that, some months ago, it sent a package of measures to the Department of the Environment. I am not sure what the Department has done with it, but it does not seem to have seen the light of day and I should be interested to know what has happened to it.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in taking interventions. I am a long-time dog owner and am broadly sympathetic to my hon. Friend's comments about the welafare of dogs. I am sure that she agrees that the Kennel Club must be as respectable as the RSPCA in wanting to promote the welfare of dogs. As I understand it, its view is that the system could not work because we cannot pick up those who do not pay their road tax or enough of those who do not pay their television licence fee. How will it be possible to pick up people for not paying their dog registration fee?

Dame Janet Fookes : There is a difference. Television sets stay quietly in the home ; dogs that are a nuisance make themselves felt. I am assuming that the Government will continue to give their blessing to the introduction of dog wardens universally. I foresee that dog wardens will have an important role in rounding up strays and, where necessary, polishing them off, to use a rather horrid expression. They would also have a duty to enforce dog legislation and to ensure that registration is dealt with. That is extremely important, as enforcement is the key. Registration and knowing who the owner of a dog is is important if the changes that the Government want, to get control over dogs, are to work.

Column 845

I know that Ministers have made great play of the fact that when there have been court cases as a result of dogs biting people, the owners of the dogs concerned have been known. That is true, but it is not, I think, appreciated by those same Ministers that there are many more cases that never go to court because ownership cannot be established.

10.30 pm

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : Does my hon. Friend accept that, just as irresponsible dog owners failed to buy the old dog licence, irresponsible dog owners would fail to register their dogs under her scheme? Would not we need an enormous army of dog cops to enforce a registration scheme?

Dame Janet Fookes : No. It would require no more than the dog wardens whom the Government have said that they want. Dogs that are a nuisance make themselves apparent, and I think it highly likely that they would therefore come to the attention of dog wardens or be reported by members of the public. The public already report dogs that are a nuisance but, most of the time, very little can be done about them. The new clause would provide a real opportunity to do something. It represents our best chance of dealing with an otherwise intractable problem, a great nuisance and, for stray dogs, great misery.

Mr. Adley : I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's analogy of the dog and the television set. It is rather similar to the analogy about houses and the poll tax, which is one of the reasons why I voted against the poll tax. On the basis of what my hon. Friend has said, I shall not vote for her proposal because the dog moves and the television set does not. Would my hon. Friend's scheme be based on dogs' or people's ability to pay?

Dame Janet Fookes : No, except, if the House so wished, it would be possible to have a lower fee for retirement pensioners or in respect of working dogs, or there might be a block fee for people who keep a number of dogs for a perfectly good reason.

Mr. Robert B. Jones : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way --she has been extremely patient. What percentage of the cost of wardens and administration would be met by the licence or registration fee, or does she assume that that will be paid for by local authorities out of the community charge? In view of the exemptions that she has just mentioned, the charge would have to be high for the scheme to break even.

Dame Janet Fookes : It is perfectly possible to set the fee at a level that makes the scheme self supporting or to have a combination of registration fee and subsidy from community charge. We already know that the Government want local authorities to undertake certain duties that have to be paid for. At the moment, so far as I can understand it--no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me if I am wrong--the Government do not intend, except in the most general sense, to offer a penny piece towards the cost, so to that extent any money raised by a registration fee would be a bonus. My main

Column 846

concern is to see that each dog and its owner are linked up and that there should be permanent identification of the dog.

Mr. Hardy : Will the hon. Lady confirm that the likely registration fee that she mentioned earlier would cover merely the administrative cost of registration, which is estimated at about £25 million, and that it would make no contribution to the cost of running any warden scheme in any local authority area?

Dame Janet Fookes : It has been estimated that at worst it might cost about £20 million for registration and all that is associated with it. That comes out at about £2.50 per dog.

I had not intended to speak for so long, but I hope that the House will understand that I have been generous in giving way. Those who are at the sharp end of the problem, such as dog wardens, RSPCA inspectors and local authorities, are the people who most want a dog registration scheme. They are the people who have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis. If I am asked to choose between Ministers at the Department of the Environment who believe that it is not the right idea and those who have practical day- to-day experience, I know who I would choose.

Sir Gerard Vaughan (Reading, East) : My hon. Friend has not answered the question about the Kennel Club.

Dame Janet Fookes : Let me deal with the Kennel Club. It is a perfectly acceptable organisation, but it deals with pedigree dogs, breeds and showing. I admit that. It does not deal with the problems of strays and other matters with which other organisations have to deal.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dame Janet Fookes : No, I shall not give way again because I have already done so far too often.

I have given as much information as I feel is necessary to start the debate. There is one last important point to make. The House is being asked to judge not a detailed scheme but a general principle. It will be able to judge a precise scheme through an order at a later stage. If it is felt that that is impractical or wrong, hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote against it then.

Mr. Hardy : First, I should make it clear that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame Janet Fookes) is entitled to her views. She would not have acted with consistency if she had not maintained the campaign that she has gracefully pursued for the past 15 years. As she will be aware, on many occasions and on a variety of subjects, I have supported some of her initiatives and some of the causes espoused by the RSPCA.

However, I regret that on this occasion, after careful consideration of a rather complex subject, I cannot vote for the new clause. There are several reasons for that. Basically they come down to the identification of responsibility. The hon. Lady mentioned Belfast. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in official quarters about the position there, because, as the Minister will confirm, fewer than half the dogs in Belfast are registered even though the system has been in operation for a long time.

If we introduce a registration scheme in Britain and people have to pay £20 or £25 or more, the people who would pay would be the same people who paid the old

Column 847

licence. They would be the people who look after their dogs, who are and would remain responsible and do not contribute to the problem that rightly worries the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. The House is worried about the problems that dogs present. But, unfortunately, the people who would pay would be those whose dogs do not cause the problems.

It is all very well for Conservative Members to be worried. Only three or four years ago when the Government wished to encourage farmers to get out of agricultural production they sent advisers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the farmers of England to persuade them to set up commercial puppy farms. One only hopes that the sensible proposal to be put to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)--to control and regulate puppy farms--will be accepted by the Government as a matter of urgency later in the year. I think that I would carry--

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : If it became a condition precedent that any dog that was sold had to be sold with a registration licence, and if it became a condition precedent that an unregistered dog seized by a warden had to be registered before it could be re-obtained by the owner, would not most dogs soon be registered, and most undesirable owners be brought under control?

Mr. Hardy : My hon. Friend is more confident of that than I am. We should need an effective dog warden scheme to achieve that in the first place. Coming as he does from St. Helens, my hon. Friend is well aware that his authority, which, like mine, has been poll tax capped, has no resources to devote to such a project. My hon. Friend may think rightly that the present situation is daft, but I want as far as possible to influence the House to arrive at a sensible arrangement.

In the 1970s I proposed that the then dog licence system was ridiculous and had fallen into disrepute, because of the low charge and because of the need to prevent people from acquiring a dog or puppy unless they obtained a licence for it on acquisition, not merely when it was six months old. Unfortunately, the Government, acting with considerable irresponsibility, refused to take action and sheltered behind certain requirements that they imposed on hon. Members who sought to resolve the issue by means of private Members' legislation.

The Minister cannot deny that on a number of occasions when such legislation was presented, the Government sought to apply the condition that the determination of the licence fee and responsibility for the operation of the system should fall exclusively on local authorities. Several of us made the point at the time that the licence fee should be set nationally, because it was a matter for which the Government should take responsibility. I am anxious about new clause 5(4), which has serious implications :

"In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs."

Does that mean that there will be an effort to introduce the transponder-- the insertion into the scruff of a dog's neck of a device that will facilitate identification? I should need convincing that the transponder was likely to be effective, that it would last for a reasonable time and that the

Column 848

financial basis on which it was introduced was defensible and responsible. I have not yet heard satisfactory answers on these issues, although I was reassured at a meeting of the RSPCA that I attended that the device would not be inserted into the dog's ear. The dogs that I exhibit and judge at shows would not benefit from such an insertion into their ears. I hope for an explanation of this subject.

One aspect of the problem may be ignored. It is that the overwhelming majority of stray dogs are cross bred. Hon. Members who look at the evidence will find that to be the case. Whether my hon. Friends like it or impute social factors to it, the fact is that, as the number of cross-bred dogs diminishes, the number of pedigree dogs increases. As a result, the scale of the problem is likely to diminish. That is a reasonable theory to advance, because most dogs that are obtained after deliberation, and probably at high cost, tend to be more carefully looked after and in many cases--this is a generalisation--rather more treasured.

10.45 pm

Some of my hon. Friends do not approve of the Kennel Club, although it is not a political organisation. It is responsible for the administration of dog shows, and my hon. Friends should understand that that is a rapidly growing activity. I shall give hon. Members an illustration of that. Twenty years ago anyone with a registered pedigree dog could show it at Cruft's. Over the last two decades more and more people started to enter their dogs and the Kennel Club had to introduce qualifications. It had to increase the number of days. Cruft's used to be a one-day show but it is now a four-day show. Dogs have to qualify and the standard is very high.

I use that example to show that dog showing is a large-scale activity. There are 7,000 or more dog shows a year and at some of the larger shows, for example at the Leeds or the Driffield championship shows in Yorkshire, 17,000 dogs will be present. The people who take part in those activities look after their dogs and are not necessarily those who write to their Members of Parliament. They would be very angry--and many of them have expressed that anger to me in the past two or three months--if they had to pay for dog wardens. They would have to pay for the wardens and the registration scheme, yet they are not the people who cause the problem.

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham) : I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept that the members of the Kennel Club are not likely to cause the problem and of course, my hon. Friend's dogs are kept under control. My hon. Friend opposes the new clause. What is his alternative proposal for identifying the owners of the dogs that roam around the streets in packs in my constituency and in his, terrorising old-age pensioners to such an extent that they cannot leave their houses?

Mr. Hardy : That leads me to my final conclusion and I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend. There are already on the statute book Acts to deal with the problem. There is an Act requiring all dogs in a public place to wear a collar and an identification tag. There is also an Act, which I accept dates from the 19th century, which makes it an offence for any ferocious dog to be at large unmuzzled and not on a leash.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 849

Mr. Hardy : No, because I am trying to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). As I think my hon. Friend will admit, there are clear laws on the statute book. They have been there for a long time and they are completely ignored.

Only a small proportion of those who ought to have paid for dog licences did so and no one took any notice of them. Very little notice has been taken for a long time of the statute that says that a dog in a public place must wear a collar and be capable of identification. Many people think that bringing in a new Act which to a large extent merely replicates existing statutes will compound the problem by adding to the burden on those who are responsible and appearing to reward those who are not.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : Like my hon. Friend, I own a dog, which does not get into trouble. I would not object to paying a licence fee for him. Twelve years ago, when I was chairman of Ollerton parish council in Nottinghamshire, the district council was not doing anything about the stray dog problem, so the parish council employed its own dog warden, and that system worked. Had we had a registration system, it would have worked a lot better. Therefore, I support the new clause.

Mr. Hardy : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has thought about the matter, and that he does not object to paying a registration fee for his dog. However, many people find it difficult to make ends meet, and would find it hard to bear an additional burden, particularly if they saw the dogs of their neighbours straying, and they knew that the fee had not been paid by those neighbours.

The matter deserves serious consideration. Those who could contribute to finding a solution should be consulted properly by the Minister. However, the proposal from the RSPCA, although it has the support of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends for whose view I have regard, is inadequate and ill-considered.

There is a problem which, although sometimes overstated, causes much concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) referred to a successful dog warden scheme, but not all such schemes are effective. Given the pressures on local authorities today, the vast majority of them could not embark on additional financial responsibility, unless they received a great deal more support from the Secretary of State than seems likely, especially in authorities such as mine. Without proper central support and consideration, after a long period of governmental irresponsibility, the situation will remain unsatisfactory. However, the new clause is not the answer to the problem.

Mr. Robert B. Jones : It is clear that this debate is about real problems, but I rather fear that it is about unreal solutions to them. From the letters that we have received, we all know full well that dog mess, straying and attacks by dogs are problems about which people are genuinely concerned, and rightly so. However, the scheme set out in the new clause will do nothing to solve them. Some of the legislation already on the statute book, and some of the measures about to go on it, will help. For example, the Bill deals with dog mess because the measures on litter deal with cleanliness on the streets. We are right to rely on what the Bill will enact.

Column 850

The problem of dog attacks would, in part, have been dealt with by the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes)--the Dangerous Dogs Bill. We are told that the solution is a dog registration scheme, and that in force in Northern Ireland is usually cited. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that only half of the dog owners in Northern Ireland had taken out licences for their dogs. That would happen in the United Kingdom as a whole, and the tax would be concentrated on reponsible owners. I could not go along with that. If one talks either to local authorities or to the man in the street in Northern Ireland, one will find that they admit that there has been a reduction in the worrying of animals- -that is why the National Farmers Union takes the view that it does--but I believe that they would say that there are still major problems of straying and of dog attacks in Northern Ireland, and that those problems are attributable to those who have not taken out dog licences.

This would be the wrong time to put a further burden on local authorities, and if that view is accepted the scheme would have to be self-financing. If there were to be an exemption for old-age pensioners, exemptions would have to be extended to others with low incomes, including perhaps the unemployed. When all the exemptions have been take into account, the implication is that there will be a much higher charge than there would have been for those who have to pay. It is calculated that in Northern Ireland it costs three times as much to administer the registration scheme as the revenue that it brings in. If we were to have registration, dog wardens and all the other paraphernalia for which the RSPCA argues, the charge would have to be £50. That would lead to widespread evasion and widespread resentment among responsible dog owners, and no diminution of the problems. That is why I reject the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Drake.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : I support the new clause. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) should be congratulated on her persistence on this issue over many years and on the support that she has received. I remind the House that on a previous occasion the hon. Lady persuaded us to accept a measure--it is on the statute book--which said that the Secretary of State for the Environment "may" issue regulations. This evening she did not draw attention to the most important word in the new clause, which is "shall". Lines 1 and 2 state that

"the Secretary of State shall by order".

produce regulations. That difference between the hon. Lady's Act and the new clause is essential and crucial.

We were dealing previously with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. The word "may" provided him with a classic excuse for doing nothing. In fact, he did nothing and no regulations were produced. We must hope for better from the present Secretary of State for the Environment, but it is wiser to err on the side of "shall" rather than "may" in this instance. I wish it to be clear that I am fond of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. Indeed, I even bought one of his paintings. On this sort of issue, however, he sees an army of bureaucrats round every corner in every piece of legislation. I believe that he is

Column 851

wrong. I shall argue that it is not necessary to have an army of bureaucrats to administer the sort of scheme which the hon. Member for Drake has put before us.

I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I am sure that he will agree with me that under the old licensing scheme there was a difference between Scotland and England and Wales. In Scotland, the licence fee was part of the revenue of local authorities, whereas in England and Wales it was part of national revenue. I remember some years ago asking one of the local authorities in my constituency why it was not more assiduous in collecting the licence fee. I received the obvious reply that at 37 p the fee barely covered the cost of issuing postal reminders, let alone anything else. Long before the fee was formally abandoned, the authority had given up trying to collect it. Any registration scheme must incorporate a realistic fee, and the hon. Member for Drake has faced that.

I believe that there are three categories of person who would welcome the new clause. The first category comprises those who care about dogs. In this instance I must disagree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I, too, am a registered breeder with the Kennel Club. I have great respect for that organisation, but it is dealing, let me put it bluntly, with the narrow end of the dog-owning market. It is not dealing with the problems that come to us day by day.

I received a letter only this morning from a constituent complaining about the keeping in a block of flats of a group of six dogs. They are kept in a wholly unsuitable back yard, and the local authority and the police are unable to do anything about it. There are the consequent problems of fouling and so on. The Kennel Club has told us officially that it does not like the scheme that the hon. Member for Drake has proposed, but many of its members, because they care about dogs as animals, would be willing to pay the modest fee that would be required in order to see a comprehensive scheme introduced in each local authority.

Second, there are those who do not care so much about dogs but who care about the mess that uncontrolled dogs make. We all receive many letters about the nuisance that is caused by dogs. There is the insanitary nuisance, and more recently there is the widespread nuisance that is caused by more vicious dogs that are uncontrolled and untraceable that attack people, especially children.

Mr. Marlow : I basically support what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) wants to do. There is some concern about identification. We know that under existing legislation dogs should wear a collar and tag so that they can be identified. However, they cannot be identified because no group of people insists that the collar and tag are worn. The Government's proposals require local authorities to keep the streets clean, and we can insist that our local authorities bring about that desirable end. Therefore, there is bound to be a national dog warden scheme. Each local authority will have to have a dog warden to achieve what the Government are setting out to do. Given identification and a dog warden scheme, what will registration achieve?

Next Section

Home Page