| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. The regulations state that quotations must be very brief, but the hon. Gentleman is being very long-winded. Will he please come to his question?
Sir Peter Tapsell: My question is this: is not what I predicted 12 days ago exactly what has happened under the ineffectual presidency of this British Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: When we as politicians are driven to quoting our previous speeches, there is always
a bit of a problem. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about this. The eight years is the period of nomination. There is nothing in the treaty that says that the person is obliged to serve for the full eight years. If he reflects on that for a moment, he will see that that would have been a slightly odd thing to have required. He talks about horse-trading. There was not horse-trading; there was a simple clash. I shall explain it again.
The clash was not about whether Mr. Duisenberg retired early; he had always made it clear that he wanted to do that. The issue was whether he should be obligated--in other words, that we should have a split term, which was what one of the countries was advocating. The issue took 10 hours to resolve because Mr. Duisenberg, backed by the British presidency and by other countries, refused to say that he would step down on a specific date. As a result of the agreement, he does not have to go on a specific date. He has indicated his intention, but he is not tied to any particular date, and it is entirely up to him when he goes.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
But what if he changes his mind?
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman shouts out that Mr. Duisenberg could change his mind. That was the very question that I was asked at the press conference after the meeting, and I answered yes. That is so, which is why it is not in breach of the treaty.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) says that politics is involved. I find it odd that he, from a right-wing perspective and others from a left-wing perspective--some in the European Parliament--say, "Isn't it disgraceful that there has been politics in the appointment of the head of the European central bank?" My answer to that is no. Under the treaty, the politicians decide the head of the central bank. Under the treaty, the politicians decide what should be the case. Once appointed, it is for the central bankers to be independent. I make no apology for the politicians having decided this. The politicians should have decided it--and we did.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow):
Does the Prime Minister detect any logic and coherence in a political position that, first, opposes operational independence for the Bank of England, secondly, criticises the appointment procedure for the president of the European central bank on the ground that it will undermine operational independence and, thirdly, opposes the general principle of a single currency because politicians will not have day-to-day control? Do not those policy prescriptions, which, by the way, are those of the Conservative party, show how far from power that Opposition party is on this national and crucial issue? Is not it a travesty and an undermining of
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is quite right. On Sunday morning, the shadow Chancellor was saying that the pound was going to go through the roof. It is simply an indication of how much credibility the Conservatives have left that it did not move an inch on Monday.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon):
The Prime Minister would have come out somewhat better from this inglorious episode if, instead of pretending that everything in the garden was lovely and that an absolutely super weekend was had by everybody, he had acknowledged that horse-trading is at the heart of international organisations--the European Union--and that the job of the presidency is to manage it. Does he agree that what matters is the outcome? If the single currency is successful, no one will care a hoot about its origins five years from now. Will he say whether Mr. Duisenberg's eventual resignation is political, moral, legal or aspirational, and how he intends to manage the Chancellor's five tests?
The Prime Minister:
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his first point. In fact, I may even agree with him altogether--we shall have to wait and see. I am not saying that the weekend was wonderful. He has been at such negotiations as a Minister, so he knows that they are extremely difficult and protracted. The problem arose precisely because we were not going to say that Mr. Duisenberg had to step down on a particular date. The meeting could have been tied up at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and we could all have gone home--which would have suited me fine--but people were not prepared to give on that basic question of principle. I entirely agree that what matters is a good outcome.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Duisenberg's resignation would be political, moral, aspirational or whatever. The resignation will be personal--if Mr. Duisenberg decides that he wants to go, that is when he goes, as was made very clear in his personal statement, and in what I said as president both in the Council and at the press conference afterwards.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received an application from the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on the allegations that the Foreign Office has been involved in a coup in Sierra Leone? The allegations are serious and the House needs to know what they are. Furthermore, it would be right for the House to express a view on the need for an independent element in the inquiry. This is the third or fourth time that a point of order has been made about the unwillingness of the Foreign Secretary to make statements to the House to account for his doings in office.
Madam Speaker:
I was not informed today that the Foreign Office or any other Department wanted to make a statement on the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If there was to be a statement, it would have been on the Annunciator by lunchtime today.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understood it, the Leader of the Opposition said from a sedentary position that he would have blocked Mr. Duisenberg's appointment. As that comment was referred to later, am I correct in thinking that it should be recorded in Hansard?
Madam Speaker:
These are matters for argument. Hansard knows perfectly well what it should record--the Editor does not need to be instructed by me.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were very generous--as was the Prime Minister--in allowing one hour and 10 minutes for the statement, but, as you are aware, a number of people were not called to ask questions. Can you do anything to encourage not only hon. Members to ask brief questions but the Prime Minister not to filibuster with such long, repetitive answers?
Madam Speaker:
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the Prime Minister filibusters. Answers--and, indeed, questions--are often long on complicated issues such as this. One thing that I do to help is to keep a list of all hon. Members who have stood up throughout. When a similar statement is made, or there is a debate on a similar issue, I always see to it that those hon. Members have priority.
As I am on my feet, let me give some information of which many hon. Members are probably not aware. It is not the custom of the House for the Speaker to keep the Prime Minister, from whichever political party, at the Dispatch Box for longer than an hour. I try to abide by that, but, as the House has observed, I kept the Prime Minister here longer today because of the importance of the statement. I am sorry that I could not call all hon. Members. As I said, I have a list and I know hon. Members' interests. I think that it can be said that I called hon. Members from both sides of the House with very differing views on this issue--they were carefully selected.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
I beg to move,
My Bill would not reintroduce a scheme of that nature, but significant advances have been made that would make a new scheme both sensible and timely. In particular, I shall argue for a scheme that combines registration and identification functions, as I believe that only by fulfilling both purposes can the measure be effective.
In introducing the Bill, my arguments will fall into three groups. First, I shall set out the benefits that I believe the measure would bring--in proposing legislation, one must always keep a clear idea of its goals. Secondly, I shall describe the schemes that could usefully form part of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Thirdly, I shall try to allay some of the concerns of those who are not yet convinced of the need for registration.
Arguments for registration fall into three classes: first, that it would benefit the animals; secondly, that it would benefit their owners; and thirdly, that it would benefit the wider public. According to a wide range of opinion, the establishment of a clear legal link between each dog and its owner would add greatly to animal welfare, by encouraging responsibility among owners.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently reported an increase in animal cruelty--in 1997, there were 1,092 of cruelty to dogs, an increase of 892 from 1996. One of the greatest causes of frustration is the difficulty in preventing those who have successfully been prosecuted and banned from keeping dogs from so doing. I hope that a comprehensive registration scheme would make it more difficult for a banned owner to keep a dog against the law.
If dogs were registered on a suitable scheme, those involved in accidents could swiftly be traced to their owners and vets. Dog welfare could be promoted by using a database to send owners information on, for example, an alert on diseases in an area or, more generally, on subjects such as neutering.
A further important development would be to eliminate the need for quarantine when animals travel from certain countries. Most people would welcome such a move, which would benefit animals and owners alike. To ensure public confidence in dispensing with our traditional protection against diseases such as rabies, we need far more information about the individual animals that would be exempted from quarantine. A reliable system of animal identification is essential if, as I hope, we are to proceed along those lines.
Registration could also reduce the number of strays that face destruction. That number is estimated to be about 100,000, which represents a terrible indictment on a nation that professes to consist of animal lovers.
Principal among the benefits of registration to owners would be anything that helped their pets, such as can be seen in voluntary schemes such as PetLog, which is operated jointly by the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Dogs that are logged on to such a database can be returned to their owners swiftly, minimising the distress that can be caused by a lost pet. Owners may receive added value benefits from information that is held on databases, such as genetic data for breeding or vet bill insurance services.
The advantages to the wider public would be manifest in a number of areas, principally in dealing with the problems of biting, fouling and causing road accidents. Liability needs to be established in all those cases, which can be a major problem under the current unregulated system. It has been estimated that the costs of dealing with problems that result from uncontrolled dogs run into millions of pounds.
The main arguments against registration include cost to the individual, an increase in unnecessary bureaucracy and the fact that irresponsible owners will continue to evade registering. I hope that there will be widespread consultation on costs. To keep registration costs in perspective, they should be set against the total costs of dog ownership. I hope that I shall not put off people from owning pets by referring to RSPCA estimates that total costs are £7,324 for the 12-year life span of a dog--I am certainly making the most of my two cats now that I have seen estimates that they will cost more than £7,000 each during their lifetimes.
Developments in technology mean that the costs may be far lower than expected, and we should be able to avoid problems of unnecessary bureaucracy. Microchipping has proved an effective means of dog identification. A chip the size of a grain of rice is placed beneath the skin and can be scanned on a hand-held device to give an identification code. When I first heard of microchipping, I had visions of people in the dog rescue centre waving dogs across something akin to a supermarket checkout; but cheap hand-held devices are already carried by most dog wardens.
The RSPCA routinely microchips any animals that go through its homes. In an example to the nation, the Blue Peter dog was chipped some years ago, bringing us a long way forward from sticky-back plastic and ordinary household glue solutions. I do not favour making the microchip compulsory and would allow other, appropriate forms of identification, but its widespread use may be a significant factor in keeping costs down as many owners choose it for their own convenience.
For reasons of utility, and with an eye on costs, I would favour a national database, rather than having each local authority set up its own infrastructure. The Kennel Club
already operates a database of more than 4 million dogs. Set against the total estimated dog population of about 6.5 million, that demonstrates the feasibility of a national scheme.
With today's technology, computerised schemes can be operated far more cheaply and effectively than 10 years ago. In keeping with the times, it may make sense to require dogs to be registered with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State, rather than setting up an entirely new infrastructure in the public sector. Several possible solutions exist within the framework of a national database with local access points.
Some owners are irresponsible, but the problem of evasion does not lead us to abandon the licensing of shotguns or the registration of cars. We are all irritated at the thought of evasion by some who should be paying their dues, but the additional identification functions will make evasion less likely, and a national database system can be used to identify and follow up problems of under-registration.
I would expect wide consultation on the cost, particularly with a view to exemptions for those groups, such as older people and the disabled, who clearly cannot afford to pay. Perhaps animal welfare organisations that offer cheap or free services--neutering, for example--for the pets of people on low incomes could offer procedures such as microchipping as a low-cost registration option.
Public acceptance of registration is demonstrated in opinion polls that show that as many as 90 per cent. of people, including dog owners, are in favour of such a scheme. The examples abroad are legion. Denmark and Sweden already operate schemes that they believe to be a major success.
When we last had a dog registration scheme, it was based on a structure old enough for the fee to be expressed as a pre-decimal sum: 7s 6d, or 37½p. Through the Bill, we may introduce a new identification and registration scheme before its fee has to be valued in euros, whenever that may be.
4.43 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a scheme for the compulsory registration of dogs; and for connected purposes.
It is now a decade since the registration of dogs was finally abandoned. The scheme that was dropped had been introduced some 200 years ago as a tax for the Navy when we were at war in various conflicts with our current European partners--from the comments that we heard today, I take it that some hon. Members still hark back to those glorious Napoleonic days. The scheme that was abolished had largely fallen into disrepute and had become a bureaucratic burden with little idea of its purpose.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |