| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Butterfill : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by definition, a large number of strays are unwanted dogs and that the surplus dog population is causing a considerable problem which would not be addressed by registration?
Mr. McAllion : Cannot the hon. Gentleman try to understand that dogs are unwanted because we make it so easy to own them? If we made it difficult for people to buy a dog at Christmas for their children, irresponsible owners might be put off owning one. That is our argument.
One of the last arguments in opposition to a dog registration scheme came from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who said that such a scheme might involve the House legislating for right of entry into locked premises. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 5(2) of the Bill for which he will be voting today, which gives authority to justices of the peace and sheriffs to issue warrants to allow entry into locked premises in pursuit of dogs which are said to be out of control. The Bill already gives that power, which the hon. Gentleman said would be unacceptable if it were required to make dog registration work. He cannot possibly defend that absurdity.
Mr. Robert Banks : Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if someone buys a dog at Christmas and six months later the family decide to get rid of it, they will take the collar off the dog and let it go? That is the straight problem.
Mr. McAllion : The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to a dog that was thrown out of a speeding car, simply to get rid of it. There was no collar and tag on the dog to trace the person who had thrown it out of the car. If a chip had been implanted in the back of the dog's neck, the owner could have been traced under a dog registration scheme. Why cannot Conservative Members come to terms with that fact?
This should not be a party political issue, as is clear from the names of the hon. Members who tabled the new clause. I regret that the Government have turned it into an issue of confidence in a Government who are politically weak. That should never have happened. This is a non-party issue, and the country needs hon. Members to
Column 739
treat it seriously and on its merits--not on the basis of whether they belong to a particular political party. The fact that the Government have made this a party political issue will not be forgotten by people when they vote in the general election.Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : I am grateful for the opportunity to address this point. I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate and have not left it at any time. I oppose new clause 1. Registration is not a panacea for the dog problem, as is recognised by those who advocate it. If a dog attacks a child, it will make no difference if that dog is registered. Many hon. Members referred to the welfare of strays. Sixty per cent. of stray dogs in Northern Ireland are registered. Those in favour of registration are trying to say that a registration scheme will make dog owners totally responsible and that the behaviour of registered dogs will be different from that of unregistered dogs. That is absolute nonsense and the sooner that we recognise that, the better. A dog registration scheme will not stop the other problem of faeces littering our parks where our children run about and pick up what the dogs have left behind, and nor will such a scheme make dog owners more law- abiding, as has been suggested by those who support the provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) suggested, such a scheme would be no more than a canine poll tax, bringing with it a bureaucratic nightmare that would become more and more expensive as time goes on. The essence of a good law is that it is enforceable. The more holes there are in the system, the more difficult it will be to enforce, the more disreputable it will become, and the less and less likely it is to be effective.
12.45 am
The existing law, with its collar and tag and recognition provisions, is satisfactory. If it is properly applied and enforced and backed with the provisions of this Bill, the situation will improve. The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will come into force in a few months and will strengthen the way in which we can deal with dogs. The only dog registration scheme that has any credibility is one that provides for a dog to be registered at the point of purchase, but even that can fall on its face because of the many breeders who produce dogs but are not shopkeepers or properly registered breeders.
A dog registration scheme will not work. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It would be an insult to the responsible dog owners who would pay, yet it would not catch those who would not. That is why I shall vote against it with confidence.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), when he managed to spare the time to be with us, asked what a register would do. Had he stayed long enough, he would have heard his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that it would enable the police and others to know exactly where pit bull terriers or other prescribed dangerous dogs lived, and the name of the recorded owner. The Home Secretary has therefore conceded the argument for a dog registration scheme, but he wants it to be narrow in its scope.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and some of his hon. Friends have said that a registration
Column 740
scheme would be a bureaucratic nightmare, but they do not say that about firearms, motor vehicles or television sets, even when they know that compliance will not be 100 per cent. That is because, when the House rules that such things should be registered, we also arm the Home Secretary of the day with enforcement measures.Many of the attacks on the proposition of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) have been on the grounds of hon. Members' notions about particular dog registration schemes, but that is not what we are talking about. As the German Shepherd Dog League of Great Britain has said, it is possible to have a scheme that does not apply to existing dogs. The league argues that as each puppy is born, it should be registered immediately. In parallel, it should be made an offence to possess entire males unless that is sanctioned under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. That is one way of doing it. Over 10 years, the problem could be solved. I hope that the Home Secretary understands that we are discussing the new clause, and not my ideas or anybody else's about what might happen. If the right hon. Gentleman could get that into his head, he might better understand the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Drake.
Mr. Kenneth Baker : Two policy documents have been produced by the Labour party in favour of dog registration. The authors owe it to the country to explain exactly what dog registration will mean, the level of the fee and whether it would be self-financing or subsidised. Could we have some answers?
Mr. Corbett : I ask the Home Secretary to be patient. I ask him also to get it between his ears that we are discussing new clause 1. It has been argued that a national dog registration scheme would not stop attacks on children and others, and that is right. No one--not even the Home Secretary --claimed that the firearms legislation could prevent another Hungerford, although it is to be hoped that it has made it less likely. Such arguments about the responsible ownership of firearms under a licensing system also apply to a responsible system of dog ownership.
To put the Home Secretary's question to me in a nutshell, "How much is that doggie in the window?" It has been put to him two or three times, most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), that on a conservative estimate the lack of a national registration scheme costs at least £70 million a year.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : Rubbish
Mr. Corbett : The Foreign Secretary tempts me, but I shall not be diverted because of the time constraint.
As I have said, it is estimated that the lack of a national registration scheme costs about £70 million a year, so we have that money to work with. I give an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and myself that when my right hon. and hon. Friends form the next Government we shall produce a specific dog registration scheme, and put a price tag upon it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : The new clause is directed to the control of dogs that are not otherwise regulated, and that is how my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J.
Column 741
Fookes) introduced it. Much has been said about responsible ownership and the introduction of legislation that will control dogs. I remind the Committee, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), of existing legislation. First, we have the Animal Health Act 1982, which provides that everyone who has a dog should cause it to wear a tag that bears the dog's name and that of its owner. If the dog does not wear a tag, the owner is liable for a fine of £2,000. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for a scheme to be introduced next April that will deal, among other things, with the extremely important problem of strays.With those two pieces of legislation we have provided that all dogs must carry the name and address of their owners. Through local authorities, wardens will have authority to collect strays. Accordingly, strays will no longer be a problem. The same legislation takes care of the fouling of public places and of areas being limited for dogs. It answers the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake for the control of dogs that are not otherwise regulated.
We have heard much about a dog registration scheme, but I have not heard one argument that has convinced me that enforcement would be better through such a scheme than through current legislation. Nothing will make the irresponsible owner licence his dog. Nor is there anything that will prevent a registration scheme being extremely expensive and bureaucratic and from producing harassment and complications that would not be right or proper. I have considerable reservations about the notion of tattooing or chipping dogs so that we can trace their owners. Indeed, some Opposition Members have expressed considerable reservation about such schemes. The most frightening argument that has been advanced by Opposition Members is that they would like a registration scheme introduced because that would enable them to trace people who had dogs. It seems that they might even go further and say that only those who they think are the right people should own dogs. That is the slippery path down which the Opposition want to lead us. Given some of the frightening views expressed it makes me wonder whether we are listening to the views of those who are dog lovers or dog haters. Some Opposition Members would like to dictate how many dogs people should have, let alone whether they should have a dog, and how much it should cost.
I hope that my hon. Friends have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put. I hope that they will consider carefully the implications of introducing an expensive, difficult and bureaucratic dog registration scheme on top of existing legislation.
Dame Janet Fookes : My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sought to dissuade me from my course of action by citing several reasons, with which I shall deal briefly.
First, my right hon. Friend suggested that the cost of the registration would be great and he offered various figures taken from the LSE research document. The highest figure of £60 million works out at under £10 a dog. I do not believe that that is such a ghastly amount as suggested.
Column 742
Secondly, my right hon. Friend sought to say that the Bill and existing legislation are adequate to meet the problem, without a dog registration scheme. I hope that I have summarised my right hon. Friend's argument correctly. However, the duty of enforcement will fall largely on the local authorities. It is the environmental health officer, the dog wardens and the Association of District Councils who say that they want and need a dog registration scheme as the mechanism by which to carry out their duties. If I were asked to believe either my right hon. Friends--good and excellent they may be--or those who must carry out that duty on a daily basis, I would believe those who have that daily responsibility.Anyone would think that the dog registration scheme was some strange scheme that we were pioneering. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned certain countries, but he was careful to list those countries that are not notable for being particularly law-abiding in any sense.
Dame Janet Fookes : Yes, Spain is one such example. I suggest that he should study Germany, Sweden, Australia and Canada. They all operate effective registration schemes.
If owners are required to register when they acquire a dog and to pay a fee for so doing, they immediately commit an offence if they do not. Those who must enforce the law want that first step of enforcement--dog registration- -at their disposal. In that way one does not have to wait for another offence to be committed, such as fouling, fighting or anything else. The registration scheme is a ready-made arrangement upon which dog wardens and the police can rely. My right hon. Friend also spoke about tags. He will be aware that I have advocated a permanent system of identification. That means that if the collar and tag are lost one is still able to identify the dog. That mechanism, more than anything else, would mean that we would be able to track down irresponsible owners. That would result in more responsibility. A collar and tag is also of great value to those owners who want to look after their dogs as they are much more easily found if they have such identification.
I advocate the clause strongly and I hope that the House will support me.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Whichever way the vote goes, I believe that the House is agreed that we need a climate of responsibility.
One of the greatest problems with registration is that, when someone is assaulted by an animal they know, registration does not help. When someone is bitten by a dog that runs away, registration does not help. It gets away from the point that was well put by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who said that there are far too many dogs in urban areas that are not cared for responsibly. I do not believe that the registration scheme is the answer, but we should have sympathy with the RSPCA. It has to put down thousands of dogs each week. I believe that if owners could think about the end of their dog's life rather than just about its beginning we would have a better climate--with or without registration, which I intend to vote against--for dogs and human beings.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :
Column 743
The Committee divided : Ayes 260, Noes 303.Division No. 161] [12.59 am
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allason, Rupert
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Bellotti, David
Bendall, Vivian
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carr, Michael
Cartwright, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clay, Bob
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Dover, Den
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Eastham, Ken
Edwards, Huw
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Fearn, Ronald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Fisher, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Fookes, Dame Janet
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Gale, Roger
Galloway, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hain, Peter
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Haynes, Frank
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Henderson, Doug
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Howells, Geraint
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam
Irving, Sir Charles
Janner, Greville
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Kennedy, Charles
Kilfedder, James
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Kirkwood, Archy
Lambie, David
Lamond, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Leighton, Ron
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lewis, Terry
Litherland, Robert
Livingstone, Ken
Livsey, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
| Next Section
| Home Page |