| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): I have sympathy with the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I agree that we should try to ensure some consistency in enforcement of the new legislation--assuming that it passes--but I am also worried that a disproportionate burden may be placed on some local authorities.
I am unaware of any dog breeding establishments in my constituency, yet presumably, if new clause 1 were passed, the local authority would be required to submit some sort of nil return. For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Hexham, I am concerned that that may generate concern among the--very strong--animal welfare lobby in my constituency as to why action is not being taken. We would then see all sorts of correspondence in the local papers about why we were not taking action against non-existent establishments.
I think the proposed new clause will place a disproportionate burden on my local authority, which has plenty to do already. If it were to establish a threshold in terms of the number of licences issued or make some other requirement before imposing obligations on local authorities, I might have more sympathy with it. That would ensure the consistency that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border seeks regarding the proper licensing and policing of establishments. However, we must not impose unnecessary obligations on the vast bulk of local authorities.
The Bill correctly places responsibility for enforcement on local authorities, which reflects local conditions and concerns. However, I am not sure why local authorities
should provide annual reports to the Secretary of State. What will that achieve? What will the Secretary of State do with those reports and all of that information? Will he put the reports in a filing cabinet and forget about them, or will he be obliged--this requirement is not in the new clause--to produce a report consolidating all the other reports? The next thing we know is that we will have an incredibly complicated bureaucracy and we will be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, given the relatively narrow geographical location of such establishments.
Mr. Maclean:
I think the Secretary of State should be involved in the process because he may make regulations under clause 2 of the Bill, which relates to licensing conditions. As the Secretary of State has that regulation- making power, he should receive the reports so that he will know what is going on.
Mr. Dismore:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments, which clarify his argument.
If there were problems in enforcing the legislation, I am sure that they would be highlighted by the animal welfare lobby, which is very well organised--I am happy to be associated with it. It has been said that this is something of a compromise Bill: many hon. Members would like to see the legislation include other objectives that are not achievable at this time. So I question whether a great deal will be achieved by passing reports to the Secretary of State. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that will inevitably put pressure on the Secretary of State to start producing his own report on the subject.
I do not support the proposed new clause because I do not think it adds to the force of the Bill. We know that the groups involved are very well organised and that they will highlight any problems. I am sure that the Royal Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organisations will ensure that there is co-ordination between enforcement bodies. While I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, I believe that the proposed new clause goes a little too far.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere):
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced this morning, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I am grateful for his general support for the Bill and for the thoughtful way in which he proposed the new clause.
My right hon. Friend was correct in saying that the Bill has flowed from the work of 11 major organisations representing animal welfare, dog breeders, local authorities, the veterinary profession and the pet care industry. They have worked together closely to lay the foundations of the Bill, which strengthens existing legislation, closes loopholes and addresses the serious problem of some--but not all--large breeding establishments where standards fall well short of the desired levels. I emphasise that the legislation is aimed not at the responsible small hobby breeder but at the irresponsible minority of large breeding establishments.
I am also concerned about the open-ended nature of the requirement under paragraph (f), which refers to
In considering the new clause in its entirety, I am concerned that it may be inappropriate, and burdensome on those who have to enforce the Bill. I do not, of course, know what view the Government take. The Minister is better placed than us to form a view of how burdensome the new clause would be, but I suspect that it would, indeed, be burdensome.
During consideration of the previous Bill some tributes were paid to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for attending the debates. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was present because the House was considering a very important piece of legislation. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the personal interest that he has shown in the Bill and for the support that he has given it. I have no doubt that that interest and support will be reflected in his contributions on Report. We have had a useful debate and the sentiment behind the new clause is worthy, but I am not sure that the case for it has been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth):
As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) rightly said, the new clause would require each local authority annually to submit a report to the Home Office on the operation of this proposed legislation to regulate dog breeding establishments. Enforcement is a key element in the effectiveness of legislation: if it is not enforced, it will not be effective.
It is well known that there is room for some improvement in the area to which the Bill relates, but local authorities have said that the problem of enforcement is that there are loopholes in existing legislation. They say that there is no lack of will on their part to deal with the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for whose kind comments I am grateful. The point of the Bill is to close existing loopholes.
As the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have said, it would be bureaucratic
if an annual report had to be compiled by everylocal authority. The requirement would mean that the Home Office would have to analyse the statistics and produce a report itself. That might be an internal report.
"any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
That is a requirement that local authorities might have to report back on "any other relevant matter". In another context--my right hon. Friend will know what I mean--I have come to take rather a jaundiced view of open-ended requirements under secondary legislation. That jaundice extends to the requirements that we are considering.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |