House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jun 1991

Column 712

dogs in the house during the weekend. It turned out that he was a greyhound owner and before a race he wanted the dogs under his control and not in a kennel in case someone tried to tamper with them. That was all very well, but those dogs were used to being in a kennel where they could bark 24 hours a day. At the weekend, they were in an environment where people wanted a wee bit of peace and quiet--some people were working shifts.

Mr. Butterfill : How would registration help to stop dogs barking?

Mr. Martin : The hon. Gentleman should have the decency to let people speak. He had his chance during an intervention and I dare say that he will get a chance to speak. The rest of us were quiet during his intervention.

Dog registration would help in the situation that I have described because usually when the council questions such a tenant he denies that he is the owner of four or five dogs. Registration would mean that there could be some confirmation that the next-door neighbour was telling the truth when she complained that there were four or five dogs in the household.

Things got so bad in the case that I described that a perfectly good tenant gave up. She could not sleep at night because there were so many dogs in the house next door. What did she do? She applied to the local authority for a transfer, and because she had put up with the carry-on for 18 months, she got it. Her problem has been solved, but when a tenant moves out a potential tenant, looking at the house, will ask why the last tenant left. As a result, areas become hard to let. A factor that is often consistent in hard-to-let areas is that dogs are allowed to get out of control. Owners should have to face up to registration.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : I shall be brief. I welcome the Bill, but I hope that the new clause will not be added to it. I listened to the opening speeches on Second Reading and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made two interesting admissions in his speech. First, when he was challenged by one of my hon. Friends about advice given to the then Labour Government in 1977 by the British Veterinary Association that pit bull terriers should not be imported into this country, he frankly admitted that he had not found that advice persuasive and that he had rejected it. If he had taken a different course I doubt whether any of us would be detained here this evening to debate this matter, and I think that he probably agrees with me.

When he was challenged again I also heard the right hon. Gentleman say that in 1983 he voted against dog registration and he admitted that he had been in error in so doing. I am sure that at the time he did not think that he was in error.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : If the right hon. Gentleman is so fascinated by my record, it is hardly worth making the point, but he obtained an admission from me when no apology was necessary, which is very much out of character as far as I am concerned. I have now discovered the measure to which he referred--a long enabling Bill referring to about 20 local authority powers, one of which was registration. Much as I believe in registration, if such an enabling Bill were put before the House again today, I would vote against it. The point that the right hon. Gentleman made is false.

Column 713

Mr. Onslow : I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, because I would have respected him very much if he had also conceded that in 1983 he did not think that registration was necessary because there was not perceived to be a problem with dangerous dogs. I do not know how many pit bull terriers had been imported into the country in the intervening six years after he opened the gates in 1977, but I doubt whether it was many, and I doubt whether there was anything like the evidence that there is today to show that there is a particular threat that must be dealt with urgently, as this Bill seeks to do.

However many pit bull terriers there were in 1983, we are told that there may be 10,000 in Britain today. That is an astonishing figure, and it has not been contradicted. It is recognised now, but it was not in 1983, that they are an affront to society and that something must be done about them. We are talking almost exclusively about the problem of dangerous dogs, and one dangerous breed in particular. It would be better to focus on the Bill, which seeks precisely to tackle the problem, and not to be distracted by the diversion of dog registration. [Interruption.] I can give the hon. Gentleman a figure or two ; I know that he is fond of them.

There are said to be 7 million dogs in this country. According to the Metropolitan police, in 1990 there were 468 serious attacks by dogs on people in the metropolis, 111 of which were carried out by one breed alone- -the pit bull terrier. If my mathematics is remotely correct, that accounts for about 0.15 per cent. of the dog population of the United Kingdom and about a quarter of the serious attacks on people. That is why we should focus on dangerous dogs rather than being distracted by the resurrection of the dog registration scheme. We are talking about dangerous dogs and the action that we should take to deal with them. Pit bull terriers are 10 times as dangerous as any other breed. It is no surprise that they should be singled out, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly chose to do so. If any criticism can be made of the Government, it is that the Bill was not introduced sooner, not that it has been rushed through in response to media pressure and is a knee-jerk reaction. The problem is that the groundwork has been confused by the argument for registration, for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) mentioned. She rightly claimed much credit for her long advocacy of something to replace the oudated dog licence scheme. We all know that the fee that is charged for a dog licence is ridiculous and that the scheme ceases to have validity.

Complaints have been made about dog nuisance, about the problem of strays and about the cruelty with which some owners treated animals and abandoned them. All that is about animal welfare, not dangerous dogs, but we must focus on the danger. Although there may be a need for better legislation on dog welfare, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake made a powerful case that registration would encourage owners to behave more responsibly in their treatment of dangerous dogs. No responsible owner should have a dangerous dog--it is as simple and straightforward as that.

There has been a dialectical need to confuse the argument for too many years, but at last the fallacy has been identified. Dangerous dogs need special laws, which the Bill provides, but dog registration is unnecessary for other dog owners. I ask, rhetorically perhaps, what would a dog register do? We know that it would be expensive. A

Column 714

figure of £42 million was mentioned in response to an inquiry carried out by the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake may challenge that.

Dame Janet Fookes : I do. The figure for registration alone is about £20 million, which works out at about £3 per dog.

Mr. Onslow : I am aware of that component of the total, but I understood that there is a component for dog wardens, who presumably will not work for nothing.

Dame Janet Fookes : I did not intend to follow the example of other hon. Members by intervening, but the point I was making was that the amount could be variable, depending how much was loaded on the registration fee.

Mr. Onslow : My hon. Friend still has not answered my question about the cost of the dog wardens. I am sorry to have to say that I do not find her rebuttal of the £42 million figure entirely convincing. I think that we shall just have to agree to disagree. The other arguments that have been advanced in favour of the dog registration scheme seem almost equally spurious. On Second Reading, some Opposition Members said that a dog that was dangerously out of control, which is mentioned in the Bill, would be dealt with by dog registration, and that would prevent dogs from running across the road and causing car accidents. I do not find that line of thought particularly easy to follow--

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : No.

11 pm

Mr. Onslow : If the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has ever owned a dog and it has never slipped out of a door without his knowing because someone opened the back door when he was not looking, I should be surprised.

Mr. Cook : I have owned many dogs and used to breed them. The claim with which I take issue is that anyone has suggested that a registration scheme could possibly stop a dog bolting through a door. No one has ever suggested that. The purpose of a registration scheme is that the animal is tagged to an owner who must be responsible for the animal's actions and treatment. Therefore, a registration scheme would serve the dual purpose of ensuring that the animal was treated right and that the owner ensured that the animal treated other people right.

Mr. Onslow : I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, whose judgment in many matters I respect, but I do not think that he can ever have owned which did not slip out of the back door when nobody was looking--responsible owner or not.

We have heard of two incidents in playgrounds where dogs were said to have attacked first a child and then a teacher. I think that lawyers in the Chamber will be able to confirm that, if in either of those cases the dog responsible had been caught and held, it would have been perfectly possible to take action against it and its owner if it had been wearing a tag, as it should have been. It would not have made the dog or the owner behave more responsibly. It would perhaps have made action possible afterwards, but it would not have protected the child or the teacher from a serious attack.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose --

Column 715

Mr. Onslow : If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way as I know that many other hon. Members want to speak.

We should focus on what matters to people outside the House, to people with children who have seen the horrible pictures of attacks by dogs which are dangerous and which everyone knows to be dangerous. We should give the Bill a speedy passage and forget about dog registration, because it makes no contribution to the problem.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I support the new clause. The key issues that must be tackled are not the horrific attacks on humans--horrible as those are--but stray dogs on the highway, sheep worrying and neglect, which could all be dealt with by a dog registration scheme. It would certainly discourage the practice, which happens all too often in urban districts, of owners turning their dog out of the door first thing in the morning and leaving it to roam around the neighbourhood, assuming that it will return in the evening. The dog is often let out with no collar and no means of identification. The purpose of a registration scheme would be to convince people that if they want to be dog owners they must be responsible ones. Before they take on the responsibility, they should be made to think that looking after a dog is expensive and continues for a long period.

I regret that too many of my constituents become dog owners on a casual basis, believing that it will not cost them much and that, if they lose interest in the dog, someone else will look after it so they do not need to be committed to it. Through the registration scheme, we could convince people that becoming a dog owner involves long-standing expense and responsibility.

If we had an effective system of registration and a system under which dogs were effectively tagged or identified, it would be far easier for people who suffer as a result of dogs roaming about to take action. It would be understood that if people turned their dogs out first thing in the morning and allowed them to roam about, and if those dogs then caused accidents or were involved in sheep worrying, the owners would be involved in considerable expense as a result of demands for compensation.

People who have talked to farmers or have seen sheep and other animals suffering from worrying will know that it is a horrific sight. Farmers who have put in years of effort to build up the quality of their stock find that an hour or so of a pack of dogs chasing their sheep--and sometimes cattle and other animals--can cause great havoc to those stocks. It is horrific to see on the urban fringes packs of dogs attacking not only sheep, but cattle and ponies. Such incidents occur because people kick their dogs out and leave them to roam a round.

It is all very well for Conservative Members to point out that farmers are entitled to shoot dogs that are sheep-worrying. However, when I have talked to farmers who have shot dogs in such incidents, I find that they are most determined to take the dog back to the owner, tell the owner what damage the dog has done and demand compensation. A farmer who has lost 10 or 12 sheep as a result of worrying faces considerable expense. Any farmer who has suffered in that way or anyone who has an animal that is attacked on the urban fringes has a right to be able to go to the person who has irresponsibly let the dog out and to demand compensation for the damage done.

Column 716

The big advantage of a system that involves dogs being tagged is that the owner can be identified. I make a strong plea for the registration scheme--

Mr. Butterfill : As it is presently the law that dogs should wear an identification tag, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the position would be different under a dog registration scheme? Would we not find that irresponsible dog owners would continue to fail to register and that responsible dog owners would register their dogs? Those dogs wear a collar and tag now.

Mr. Bennett : With a register, it would be possible for wardens fairly quickly to identify those whose dogs were not registered--[ Hon. Members-- : "How?"] Hon. Members may ask how. In my constituency, many dogs roam around. They are picked up by wardens and the owners then reclaim them. Under a registration scheme, it would be simple when a dog was picked up for the first time because people would not get the dog back until it was properly registered and tagged. We could then bring some control into the matter.

At present, dog wardens tell us that they round up dogs, that the dogs are reclaimed by the owners who pay for the short stay in the kennels and that, a week or two later, the dogs are back on the streets causing the same nuisance. An effective system of registration would stop people taking on dogs irresponsibly and would mean that wardens could chase up dogs that were not registered. We could also cut down on the problem of farmers who suffer from sheep worrying--and I am surprised that more Conservative Members do not have sympathy for farmers who suffer in that way and do not care more about the cruelty to the animals chased by dogs.

A registration scheme would also enable us to cut down on the problem of road accidents. Conservative Members who drive along motorways may see a dog going across the motorway--and many stray dogs run across motorways. However much we say firmly to ourselves that we will not swerve to avoid the dog if there is any possibility of an accident, the first instinctive reaction is to try to swerve to avoid the dog. It is surprising how many road accidents are caused as a result of a dog being on the highway. The dog is often killed, but it is almost impossible to find its owner and to make that owner responsible for the mayhem that the dog has caused.

I argue strongly that if we want to add tonight to the attempts to protect people from dogs, we should try to protect animals from worrying and to reduce the number of road accidents. An effective way to achieve that would be to introduce a dog registration scheme. Such a scheme would benefit dogs, as it would reduce the large number of dogs that are neglected by their owners who have lost enthusiasm for the dog that was bought or accepted as a gift on a whim.

I hope that the House will accept the new clause and add it to the Bill.

Mr. Marlow : I have been involved in canine politics since I was elected to the House 12 years ago. I have a son who is blind in one eye as a result of someone not worming their dog properly, and I am aware of the problems that can be caused by dogs.

For a long time, the Government did nothing. As a result, on 26 October 1983 I sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill under the ten- minute rule to establish a dog registration scheme. My scheme was not dissimilar to

Column 717

the scheme outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) earlier this evening. The House was full at the time and I gained the support of 59 Opposition Members. A few Opposition Members went into the No Lobby and among them was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He has subsequently made his point. However, as hon. Members are aware, in a ten- minute Bill, one sets out the principle of an issue and the majority of the colleagues of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook supported that principle. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is a man of principle--at least of flexible principle.

Dogs are lovely creatures, but they cause problems in three ways : through dirt and disease, through danger, injury and fear, and through noise,. I am not aware of any proposal to deal with the problem of dog noise although it must be the most depressing form of purgatory this side of Hades to be subjected to the constant discordant symphony of a neighbour's yapping dog. There may be a solution to that problem, but it cannot be achieved through a system of registration.

When I sought leave to introduce my Bill, nothing had been done about the problem. However, that is no longer the case. There are fairly minor provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. There are much more radical provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I wonder how many of the registrationists are aware of the provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. According to that legislation, all dogs must be identified by wearing a collar and tag. By that identification they are directly connected to their owners. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing that legislation. Hefty fines are imposed on those who are not prepared to comply.

There is no evidence that such a regime will not be effective. In the unlikely event that it is not effective, I am puzzled that so many hon. Members believe that those who do not comply with the collar and tag legislation would comply with the much more irritating imposition of registration. The collar and tag has the added advantage of being visible evidence of identification, while registration is invisible.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could add any species to the present legislation, without us passing this Bill, in relation to any species that may be acceptable, such as vulpes vulpinus or any other animal regarded as feral according to common law. Registration would not have the slightest effect on making that power of the Secretary of State for Scotland or that of the Home Secretary any less or any more effective.

Mr. Marlow : As always, I find what my hon. and learned Friend says most reassuring.

Local authorities also have the responsibility of the collection and removal of filth. It is most unlikely, therefore, that they would tolerate large numbers of strays. They would also, therefore, have an incentive to remove unidentified dogs. Over the years, the only dogs that would be in circulation would be those with collars and tags--they would be identified. Local authorities would be under the added pressure, Sir Paul, that you and I as Joe Citizen have the right to take the local authority to court to make

Column 718

sure that it carries out its requirements to keep the streets clean. Byelaws are being made available to assist--not least the pooper scoop byelaw, of which most hon. Members are aware. In large measure, the problems of filth and disease can now be overcome, and will be overcome, without registration.

11.15 pm

In the Bill, radical, strong action is now being taken against the dangerous dog and the very real terror that it strikes in the hearts of the young, the infirm and the elderly in particular. Fighting dogs will virtually be removed from circulation. Dangerous dogs can be subject to muzzling, and individual animals subjected to restriction orders. Owners of dogs causing dangerous nuisance will be subject, potentially, to large fines and even imprisonment.

The only argument that I have heard which favours the registration of dogs and with which I have long had a certain amount of sympathy is that it will encourage a responsible attitude towards dog ownership. One would not just get a dog if one had to register it first. It would be a disincentive against irresponsible dog ownership--I accept that. However, there is an insufficient understanding of the measures that we have already enacted and that we intend to enact this evening.

Irresponsible dog ownership is about to become a reckless option. Experience will show that registration is not necessary to encourage such responsibility. The issue before us is not whether to register or not to register, but how to overcome the problems of dog nuisance.

Mr. Maclennan : The hon. Gentleman has described most graphically and convincingly the need for extensive operations by local authorities, law enforcement agencies and many others to rid society of the menace of dangerous dogs and also to reduce nuisance. Who should pay for all that, if not dog owners?

Mr. Marlow : That point has been debated in many places on many occasions. Do we make the dog-owning community responsible for all the costs, or do we spread the costs across the whole community? The measures that the Government have brought forward so far, and the measures that are being suggested today, will change attitudes towards irresponsible dog ownership to such an extent that the costs about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned will not be so great as local authorities might first have feared. Therefore, it is a perfectly proper option to expect local authorities to take account of those responsibilities within their general financial provisions. I do not think that it is right to impose the licence regime that has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) rose --

Mr. Marlow : I am about to finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Registration will not achieve anything that the measures already enacted and those about to be enacted will not achieve, but it will cost money and it will impose a burden without benefit on many law-abiding citizens. One thinks particularly of the owners of small, well-looked after dogs in rural areas. We would be imposing a burden on millions of our citizens. If we can solve a problem without messing people about, it is our duty to do so.

Column 719

Mr. Hattersley : I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) on her initiative in tabling the new clause and on the authoritative and moderate manner in which she moved it--and a lot of good that did her with her own Back-Bench colleagues, who treated the new clause in a manner which was very often lacking in courtesy. That is because they never learn. Having pursued the bone-headed preoccupation with deregulation for 10 years and got the Government, their party and this country into a great deal of mess because of that preoccupation, they still believe that deregulation, with the Government standing back and not acting, is the solution to every problem. Between now and the general election they will learn that that is not the opinion of the British people. It would have been good if they had learnt that lesson before we had this debate on dog registration and if they had come to understand the advantages that dog registration would provide.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) showed the unthinking attitude that will become evident between now and 1 am on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have either read or understood the Bill. He repeated time and again that the Bill is intended to deal with two breeds of fighting dog. That is the purpose of one of the clauses. I support that clause, and I have said time and again, both inside and outside the House, that the Government are to be congratulated on the way they have dealt with that problem. Had the right hon. Gentleman read on beyond clause 2, however, he would have discovered that the Bill is designed to deal with other categories of dogs--in themselves dangerous but not, in the Government's opinion or in mine, so dangerous that the breed ought to be prohibited and eventually wiped out.

The question, therefore, is how we should deal with what I shall call the generality of dogs, many of which, perhaps most of which, are well looked after, and many of which, perhaps most of which, are kept under proper control, but some of which are not, and all of which are potentially dangerous in one way or another. There is not an organisation in the country, from the RSPCA to the Kennel Club, that does not concede that every dog can potentially cause damage and destruction. It may be by the sudden biting of a small child, it may be by running out into the road and causing an accident, or it may be for other reasons, but every dog is a potential source of danger. Despite that fact, and despite the provisions in the Bill to deal with all dogs, the Home Secretary kept saying--he said it three times--that we ought to focus on what really matters, which is f ighting dogs, as though in some strange way the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill would diminish the power that the Bill provides to deal with pit bull terriers and tosas. It will do no such thing. The idea that by voting for the new clause we shall dilute the rest of the Bill is absolute nonsense. All the authoritative organisations argue that by voting for the new clause we would strengthen the Bill and make the rest of it more likely to work in practice, for three or four specific reasons which I shall shortly describe. Before doing so, however, I wish to deal with what have been and with what will continue to be the objections to the new clause.

We shall be told that the miscreants--the people for whom, according to those who support registration, registration is most necessary--will be the people who are least likely to register. We shall be told that registration

Column 720

does not, of itself, provide any protection. We shall also be told that registration is excessively bureaucratic. We were told all those things specifically by the Home Secretary, explicitly in relation to the registration of pit bull terriers and tosas. He now accepts that those three arguments do not apply. They are just as bogus for dogs in general as they are for pit bull terriers. As the Home Secretary has come to realise that fact, I hope that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends will come to realise it, too.

The Government are determined that this debate will continue until 1 am, and it is important that as many hon. Members who want to do so should have the opportunity to speak. I shall therefore be brief. All that I wish to do is to make again the case that I tried to make on Second Reading--a positive case for a register. As the right hon. Member for Woking said, it is true that about a quarter of all the serious assaults by dogs in the capital last year were by one breed--pit bull terriers--but it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention that if only a quarter of the assaults were by pit bull terriers, the special category for which we are taking special powers, three quarters of those assaults were by other breeds of dog that reasonable people believe ought to be kept under control and supervision.

One way of doing that is to extend the powers that the Home Secretary rightly intends to extend. It can be done by extending the categories of dogs that can be treated most severely. I hope and trust that that extension will prove not to be necessary, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman. It can be done by extending the powers to enable the courts to insist on muzzling and on dogs being kept in a safe place and eventually, although I remain sceptical about the Government's determination, by taking the power to insist that all dog owners take out third party insurance to protect those who may be injured by their pets.

All those measures are in themselves desirable. We have hoped for and supported all of them, but the one extra step of registration has an overwhelming advantage with which even the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) agrees--and if he perceives it, surely everyone else can. Registration will increase the climate of responsibility among dog owners and encourage people to realise that owning a dog is not something to be undertaken frivolously or lightly, or undertaken for a moment before the dog is abandoned. I mean "abandoned" in both senses of the word-- abandoning the concept of responsibility and abandoning the dog. Too often, particularly after Christmas, dogs are abandoned on motorways and streets.

The hon. Member for Northampton, North, I believe, asked why the body of responsible and respectable dog owners who cherish and look after their pets should be required to meet some of the costs involved in forcing the irresponsible owners into registration. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has announced his credentials. I was brought up in a family that always had dogs. My mother still has a dog. I do not have a dog in London, because I do not believe that it is responsible to have a dog living in the centre of London. One of the things to which I look forward when I shuffle off this place is going to Yorkshire and living a life that enables me to own a dog.

The people I know who are the most responsible owners of dogs are also among the people most keen on

Column 721

registration. Responsible dog owners know that registration protects dogs. I repeat what I said on Second Reading, because it is important. Everyone knows of even reputable kennels--not the dog farmers or the people who breed cross-bred puppies and then give them away to anyone who comes along--which sell dogs in large numbers before Christmas in the certain knowledge that, a few days afterwards, a high percentage will be abandoned or given away.

If those reputable dealers were required by law to insist that whoever purchases one of their dogs registers the dog and accepts that legal responsibility, the casual way in which, too often, dogs are bought and then abandoned would certainly be reduced. That is why, in my experience, responsible dog owners would gladly pay a small fee to extend the responsibility that they feel to a wider group. I repeat what all responsible organisations say--that, as well as protecting dogs, registration would increase the climate of responsibility, which would also protect people.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Drake--I think that he thought he was amusing--said that farmers would still shoot registered dogs if they savaged sheep. I am sure that that is so, but the object of registration is to make owners so responsible that sheep do not get savaged in the first place--to make the owner say, "I have a legal responsibility for this dog."

Mr. Butterfill : It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman impugns the intelligence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). If the right hon. Gentleman cared to read my right hon. Friend's speech, he would find that he misunderstood what he said. But that is beside the point. Sheep savaging is appalling, but if the present law were adequately enforced, identification of dogs and dog ownership would be equally responsible. All that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to produce unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr. Hattersley : If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about bureaucracy, I will repeat one point for him. If the Home Secretary chose, he could act gradually, breed by breed. The hon. Member for Drake has allowed for much flexibility in the way in which measures could be introduced. I would introduce exactly the same bureaucracy for some breeds as the Home Secretary already advocates and as is now to be introduced for pit

Column 722

bull terriers which are exempted under the extinction orders. I am prepared to extend the principle, just as the Home Secretary should be, if he is to be consistent with the latest position that he has adopted on this issue.

Finally, if we are to have a society in which dogs are cared for in a way that will protect both the public and the dogs, the Government must inculcate a general atmosphere of responsibility. In the view of all the authorities and organisations concerned, a dog registration scheme would help to create that atmosphere.

I ask Conservative Members, who have spent the past 13 years believing that their views and ideology are always right and that nothing that conflicts with their views could ever be right, to consider the possibility that, on the subject of a registration scheme, the RSPCA, the Royal Society of Veterinary Surgeons, the National Farmers Union, the Automobile Association and the Police Federation, members of which all have deep and personal interests in this matter, might just know what they are talking about--and they all say that registration will make dog owners more responsible and will, in the short term, help to solve the problem.

11.30 pm

I do not say, and none of my hon. Friends would say, that a registration scheme would solve all the problems--nor, I am sure, would the Home Secretary, with all his confidence, say that his Bill would meet all the problems--but we are struggling for some marginal improvement. I have no doubt that registration would bring about a more than marginal improvement- -indeed, that the improvement would be significant.

Whether or not the House introduces such a scheme this evening, sooner or later, one will be introduced because it is what all those involved with dogs want. Only the irresponsible are against it--the irresponsible dog owners and the irresponsible politicians who hold the little view about deregulation and cannot think outside that prejudice.

I hope that the House will support the new clause, because we know for certain that it is the majority view of the House. As I have said, if that view is frustrated and the new clause is not included in the Bill, it will be only because the Government have insisted on the vote being held in the small hours of the morning and have whipped their Members as strongly as they could to support their narrow, prejudiced view. If the new clause is not passed now, it will return sooner or later, in one place or another, to become the law of the land.

Column 723

11.31 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker) : Those who have been following the debate will know that the Bill deals with dangerous dogs and goes much wider than pit bull terriers and Japanese tosas. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has acknowledged the provisions of clause 1, about which there is general consensus in the House.

Clause 2 deals with various breeds of dogs and gives the Home Secretary reserve powers, which can be exercised only with the full approval of both Houses of Parliament, to designate a particular breed if he feels that it is a serious danger to the public, and to impose muzzling or leashing orders upon that breed--as opposed to individual dogs. That power is circumscribed because it is a considerable power to which I believe that certain of the dog interests would object strongly. I do not believe that the RSPCA would welcome the exercise of that power, but I am empowered and, indeed, statutorily required by the Bill to discuss the way in which it is used.

Clause 3 deals with the generality of dogs and with the penalties that will arise when an owner allows his dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. That is an effective and significant change. We are dealing not only with the fighting dogs or with rottweilers and alsatians : the provisions apply to any dog and impose severe penalties on owners, such as six months' imprisonment or a £5,000 fine. Embedded in that clause is a very important order-making power for the magistrates courts. If someone complains to a magistrate that a dog is out of control, even if it has not savaged anybody, considerable restrictions could be placed upon it. The Bill therefore considerably increases the powers that are available to the courts and to the various bodies in our land that deal with the problem of dangerous and vicious dogs. It is inevitable and appropriate that any dog legislation should involve a debate on registration, but, in the light of what I have said, I know that many of my hon. Friends do not see the link between dealing with dangerous dogs and registration. I say to those who are enthusiastic about registration that I believe that it would have had no effect on the three severe attacks recently--in each instance, ownership was clearly identified--and no effect on the attitude of the owners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) says, first, that registration would enhance responsible ownership. Secondly, she says that dogs should be clearly identified. Finally, she argues that costs would be moderate, sensible and easily affordable. I think that I do no disservice to my hon. Friend's arguments.

Would responsible ownership be enhanced? If a registration scheme is to be respected, it must be enforceable. The dilemma that supporters of a registration scheme always have to face is that the responsible owner will comply with it. We heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who said that while he is a Member of Parliament he is not prepared to have a dog. That is because he is so busy that he would not have time to train the dog and the puppy, which would require so many hours a day. That is the attitude of the responsible person, and clearly someone who has that attitude would comply with a registration scheme. Such a person will comply with the Bill's provisions when they are

Column 724

enacted. He is someone who trains and disciplines his dogs and looks after them properly. Such an owner is causing no trouble at present.

If registration is to be effective, it must bear down on the irresponsible- -those who do not keep their dogs on a leash in the park and those who let their dogs jump up at other people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake has examined the Bill's provisions, which bear upon these very matters precisely. I do not believe that by having a registration scheme we shall see a change in attitude towards the ownership of dogs, and those who advocate a registration scheme are inclined to oversell it. If they believe that registration will change attitudes and make everyone responsible owners--

Mr. Frank Cook : Does the Home Secretary agree that the logic that he is using to try to destroy some of the rationale behind the new clause could be applied equally to firearms certificates? The person who does not have a firearms certificate is the irresponsible owner and the person who does is responsible. Would he extend his logic and dismiss firearm certificates? Would he not rather join those of us who are clearer in thought and who accept the logic of the need for a dog registration scheme?

Mr. Baker : The matters are very different. The ownership of firearms in our society is much more restricted than the ownership of dogs, and firearms are much more expensive than dogs. I do not believe that there is a fair comparison.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Drake that the powers in clause 3 deal with the responsibility of owners. I know that she and the RSPCA support them.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Baker : I understand that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I suggest that I do not give way. In earlier debates I gave way many times and I think now that it would be better to proceed with my speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Drake talked about identification. As she rightly says, if we can link ownership with the name of a dog and a registered address, the present position will be improved. I agree with that. In recent incidents, however, the identification of the owner was not an issue. In all cases it was quite easy to identify the owner. When vicious attacks take place it is nearly always quite easy to identify the owner, unless the dog is a stray. When dealing with vicious, savage dogs, I fail to see that there is a link between them and identification. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Drake has raised a serious point, which must be addressed, about the identification of dogs. Several hon. Members expressed concern about the number of strays in their constituencies and they wanted to know the present law on dog identification.

Under section 13 of the Animal Health Act 1981, dogs are required to wear collars and tags in a public place. The penalty for non-compliance is a £2,000 fine, which will soon rise to £5,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake was right, however, to say that, although that law is on the statute book nothing much is happening about it. I have good news for my hon. Friend : when section 151 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is brought into force from 1 April 1992, it will place a duty on district councils

Column 725

and London boroughs to enforce the dog collar requirement. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Section 149 of the 1990 Act will also be brought into force at the same time and districts will be responsible for appointing dog wardens and the picking up, detaining and, if possible, returning of stray dogs to their owners. The district councils and London boroughs will have responsibility for both of those important control measures. Those controls, together with those in the Bill, will go an enormous way towards achieving what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake wants to achieve and what she has spent a great deal of her life promoting--the role of responsible ownership.

The third argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake related to the cost of registration. My hon. Friend was right to say that some animal welfare organisations have voluntary registration schemes. They charge low fees of about £3 or £4. I know that my hon. Friend would be first to recognise, however, that those schemes are inexpensive because they are voluntary--therefore they do not have to bear any enforcement costs--and because they cater for what might be described as the easy end of the market, those responsible owners who choose to register and insure their dog and take great care to ensure that it causes no harm to others. Such voluntary registration schemes are not a reasonable basis on which to estimate the likely fee for a general dog registration scheme.

We have some guidance on those costs, because the London School of Economics was asked to estimate them by the RSPCA in 1989. The total cost amounts to £46 million per year of which £23 million would be for dog wardens and associated kennelling. The other £23 million would go on the administration of the system. I understand that another £4.5 million should be added for the initial cost of registering about 700,000 dogs each year--if one assumes that there are 7 million dogs, which live for 10 years, that is equivalent to registering 700,000 a year. The total cost in 1989 was put at about £50 million--equivalent today to about £60 million.

It would be necessary to charge a much greater fee than the £3 or £4 suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake to cover the cost of the scheme. The cost also depends on the percentage of owners who comply. If one has 100 per cent. compliance, the cost can be spread over 7 million dogs. However, in Northern Ireland the rate of compliance is below 50 per cent. and in the Republic of Ireland it is below 30 per cent.

Next Section

Home Page