| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.17 pm
Mr. Heald: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the way in which he has conducted the Bill's passage. The Bill rights a wrong, will improve the welfare of dogs, and is supported by the Opposition.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): The Bill has all-party support--that of Liberal Democrat Members included--and I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on piloting it this far.
Mr. Heald: I commend the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has built his coalition and so successfully pushed through the Bill, which I should certainly commend to the House.
2.18 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I join the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in paying tribute to some of the people and organisations who are behind the Bill and have supported him so well--especially Baroness Wharton and Mr. Barry Huckle of the Pet Care Trust. The hon. Gentleman himself had good fortune in drawing such a high place in the ballot, and I congratulate him on steering the Bill through to Third Reading without losing any support.
We should perhaps not forget the ever-present right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), whose amendments, on this occasion, have improved the Bill.
It would be quite wrong not to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who, 12 months ago, steered his Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill through to Third Reading, although it failed to become statute. Perhaps--in the prevailing spirit of co-operation--we shall not go back over that ground.
I should also mention the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a long-standing interest in the subject and has long raised the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made a characteristically kindly speech in which he raised some important issues. His speech was partly about the fact that some of those issues are not addressed in the Bill. I shall study his observations to see whether there are any arguments that should be given further consideration.
The Bill has enjoyed remarkable consensus in the House and has been a good job well done. If it completes all its stages in another place and finds its way on to the statute book, as I hope it will, we shall have a workable framework for the breeding of dogs, which must be good.
2.20 pm
Mr. Maclean:
I am delighted to add my support to the Bill and wish it well in another place, whence it will go in a few minutes. I am grateful for the Minister's kind observation that my contributions today have helped to make it a better Bill. My contributions last year also helped to make a better Bill, because I single-handedly wrecked a Bill with a similar name. That understandably brought about a certain amount of correspondence. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has taken the measure up this year and, working with the co-operation of 11 groups, has helped to ensure a better Bill with more consensus. Consensus is not necessarily a good thing in itself, but on this occasion it is the only way to ensure a workable measure.
I blocked last year's measure because there were some flaws in it. It got through the House without a Second Reading debate and was going to be bounced through on the nod with no scrutiny on Report. I thought it wrong that such a contentious measure should be dealt with in that way with no discussion on the Floor of the House.
After I blocked the Bill I was contacted by the Pet Care Trust, which said that it had concerns about the Bill but no one would listen. Justice for Dogs and the National Canine Defence League then both said that, although the Bill was better than existing legislation, they would like something better. The Kennel Club and the British Dog Breeders Council came along and said "Thank God someone blocked that Bill, because it was flawed." They wanted various other measures put in. Having met those groups, I was convinced that the Bill should not go ahead in that state, so I blocked it again on 3 July.
The tragedy at that time was that the RSPCA was behaving despicably on the Bill. It refused to talk to some of the other organisations, suggesting that it knew all about dogs and was the main charity, so it could deal with everything. Some of the other organisations--I shall not embarrass them by naming them and I would probably get it wrong because I cannot remember which they were--were adamant that the previous Bill had flaws because the RSPCA had adopted a highly possessive attitude and would not listen to sensible suggestions for amendment. The new Bill addresses those flaws.
The Blue Cross and the British Veterinary Association then came on board. One of the first decisions of the working group was that it required an independent chairman. I was delighted about that, because as the person who had blocked the previous Bill I would not be regarded on all sides as someone with an independent or neutral view. I also had no track record of knowledge on the subject and we needed someone knowledgeable and independent. Lady Wharton was unanimously suggested to chair the group. I pay tribute to the tremendous work that she has done on getting the Bill to the stage at which it is about to go to her Chamber for consideration.
When I ceased to have any involvement with the Bill there were seven groups involved. There are apparently now 11 in the coalition. It is a tribute to the noble Lady
and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that they have managed to keep on board 11 groups when coming up with this compromise measure. The fact that it is a compromise does not mean that the Bill is flawed or inadequate, but it inevitably cannot do everything that every organisation wanted. If it tried to it would be even more contradictory than some of the amendments for which I have been criticised.
The Bill represents a major step forward. It tightens up the conditions in puppy farms and quite rightly introduces the concept of welfare. It involves the veterinary profession and, importantly, an inspection regime.
I should declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. That is not a paid post; it merely involves reading some of the tremendous amount of information on hip dysplasia and other problems.
I am happy to send the Bill on its way as it is a considerable improvement on the measure of a similar name that was before the House last year, and on the existing legislation. The Minister has given us some good assurances today. We have built some amendments into the Bill and I am delighted to have had a small part in those improvements. The assurances that the Minister gave the House when he listened kindly and courteously to my proposals in new clause 1 will result in better legislation and better implementation and operation of the legislation in due course. The Minister assured us that he would monitor carefully the licensing conditions contained in the Bill and how many applications were granted and refused. He gave the House an assurance that if he was aware that any parts of the licensing regime were going astray, he could deal with that by Home Office guidance.
I do not mind if my point about the licensing conditions is not addressed in another place as the legislation is good in itself, but congenital defects are one of the worst problems in the dog breeding world. Dogs get horrific illnesses not as a result of accidents or because people have abused them or failed to take care of them, but because they have been bred with congenital defects and action has not been taken to stamp that out. If the Minister or his officials can consider using the provisions of the 1973 Act and the licensing conditions that can be imposed on local authorities, we will have taken a tremendous step forward.
It is a good Bill and I am delighted to offer it my support. Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has piloted through a tricky and contentious measure. No doubt the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) is right to say that there are matters that it does not address. No Bill can cover everything, but at least this one deals with more problems than it leaves out and in that sense it deserves to leave the House with the full backing of all the parties in the House of Commons and I look forward to receiving it back from another place, if necessary improved a little more.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am well aware that I have about two minutes to raise a complex subject. My intention is to nudge the Government into producing their own measure as hon. Members do not have sufficient resources to draft proper Bills.
The Bill relates to an issue on which, at first glance, people assume there are no major problems, but it can set neighbour against neighbour, lead to people's liberties being infringed and their health being affected, and often results in court cases.
Last week I met the Minister responsible, who assured me that the Government's proposals should be ready within a couple of weeks. He said that they had taken soundings from a number of organisations including Hedgeline. Individuals have also written to the Government about some of the problems caused by high trees and hedges. One disabled lady was scared to death to leave her home because a burglar had hidden in high trees. Some people are effectively in an invisible prison.
In view of the Government's assurances, I shall not press my Bill but wait to see what they do in the coming weeks. If they take no action, I shall seek to take the Bill further.
2.28 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |