STRAY DOGS (ACCIDENTS) (Hansard, 12 March 1953)

§ Mr. Robert Crouch (Dorset, North)
I wish to approach this question of the unaccompanied dog from a different point of view from that which it is usually presented to the House. I should make it clear that I have always been a dog lover and have always felt that the dog is man's best friend. The dog is more understanding and faithful than any other animal. I have had dogs which would do anything I asked them except speak. I remember an old Labrador I had which would eat fruit from the garden or imported fruit. I took a great deal of trouble in training that dog.
I always feel that the time spent in training is well worth while. If dogs are properly trained they are the most pleasing company that one can have. Sporting dogs are always well trained. If only some town dwellers would think of the way in which our sporting dogs behave in keeping at heel in trying circumstances, we might not face the problem of the increasing number of road accidents caused by dogs.
The problem of unaccompanied dogs gets more serious each year. About 70,000 dog licences have been issued during each of several years past. Far too many people keep dogs without being dog lovers. The R.S.P.C.A. had no fewer than 288 cases last year in which convictions were secured for cruelty to dogs. Some people acquire puppies and then neglect them so that they die of starvation or suffer from disease, solely because their owners are anxious only to be able to tell their neighbours that they possess a dog and are not at all interested in the care and maintenance of the animal.
Some dog owners allow their dogs to stray in the streets at will. As a result about 400 to 500 road accidents are caused each week. In my own county no fewer than 218 road accidents were caused in the year 1951–52 as a result of unaccompanied dogs. Unfortunately, two of these proved fatal, and in 34 other incidents serious injuries were caused. Last week I saw a picture in a local newspaper, the "Wimbourne and District 1688 News" of a car which had somersaulted when the driver tried to avoid a dog. Fortunately, the car landed on its wheels and I am happy to say that the two occupants were not seriously injured. That is not always the case.
As a dog lover, I do not know what is the right thing to do—whether to drive straight on and let the dog be killed or try to avoid the animal and perhaps bring suffering and injury to human beings. In this great City of London no fewer than 14,057 live dogs were admitted last year to the Battersea Dogs Home after they had been found roaming the streets. That figure does not include dogs which were run over and injured when they strayed into the streets.
When it became known that I intended to raise this matter in the House I had a good deal of correspondence. I had one letter which said: Unfortunately, thousands of people believe that the dog is sacred, and that sheep and human beings are just there for the dog's amusement. There is some truth in that statement. In addition to being the cause of many accidents, dogs wandering at will cause the streets to be badly fouled. In some places it is most unpleasant to walk in the mornings until the road sweepers have cleared the roads and pavements. These same dogs, living on the outskirts of towns, and which cause road accidents, may have been going to, or returning from, sheep or poultry hunting expeditions.
We are seeing continual reports in the Press of large-scale sheep killings all over the country. Emphasis has been laid on the loss of meat and the financial loss to the farmer. There is another point, and that is the cruelty to the sheep. One cannot estimate the pain and suffering caused by the savaging of dogs upon the exhausted mother sheep. Only last week I saw a case of savaging in Sussex, on a farm where more than £1,000 had been lost, and, as a result, that farmer is not keeping any more sheep.
Something like £75,000 to £100,000 is the estimated loss of sheep each year which is caused by dogs running loose round the countryside. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, all dogs have to be provided with, and wear, a collar with the name and address of the owner on it and, under that Act, the 1689 police can seize any dog found straying; and, after seven days' notice, it can be destroyed. Under the same Act, the police can seize any dog at large one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether he can do more to call the attention of local authorities to the powers which they have under this Act of the last century.
Among correspondence which I have received on this subject is some from the Canine Defence League and that organisation states that no dog owner wilfully lets his dog do damage. I do not believe a word of it. There are far too many dog owners who are unconcerned with what their dogs may do, and I should like the R.S.P.C.A. to look into this question of sheep worrying in order to bring some of these people before the courts, not only because of the damage done, but because of the cruelty involved.
In the United States they deal with this problem because they are concerned about it, and it may interest the House to know that in no fewer than 28 States the licence fee for a bitch is double that of a dog. They feel that by so doing they are keeping down the number of mongrel dogs bred; little puppies get about causing a great deal of damage. In Michigan, they are so concerned about this that if a dog is found wandering at large on the highway, and a citizen informs a policeman, it can be shot without incurring legal liability. Exactly the same applies in the case of a dog which is seen at large in a field in which there are sheep and other livestock. The police have the same power as with the dog wandering in the street.
I have already mentioned that I have received a great number of letters in connection with this debate, including quite a number from the North of England. The majority of the writers say that strong action should be taken to deal with this very important matter. I have found that the motorists are unanimous in suggesting that something should be done to deal with these dogs. One lady who has written to me says that it is the motorist's fault that the dogs are killed on the road and that a motorist should have sufficient control over his vehicle to be able to stop when a dog crosses the road. She suggests that un- 1690 less he is able to do that he is not a fit and proper person to have a driving licence. That lady can have no experience of what happens when a dog suddenly darts off the pavement in front of a car.
But it is not only the motorist that the dog runs into. I met somebody last week whose relative was walking along the pavement when suddenly a dog rushed in front of her causing her to fall over and break a leg. Many dog owners let their dogs loose and are not in the least concerned what harm they may cause to pedestrians or motorists. They are only concerned with having a nice little dog.
The dog licence was introduced in 1878 and its price is 7s. 6d. That amount must have made an impact on the pocket in those days, but today it is only the price of two packets of cigarettes. Quite recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) also initiated an Adjournment debate on dogs. He and I have discussed the matter together and he has very kindly given me the correspondence he received on the subject. It is very remarkable that only about 25 per cent. of the people who have written to us think that 7s. 6d. is a fair charge.
I feel that more attention should be given to the training of dogs, not only in the interest of dog owners generally, but for the blind, for cripples and for old age pensioners living alone. I know that to such people a dog is a great comfort and a great help in case anyone should attempt to molest them. Consideration should be given to this matter and also to the question of giving such people complete exemption from having to buy a dog licence.
Today, well over 3 million dog licences are issued in this country every year, and our population of dogs is going up at the rate of something like 75,000 dogs a year. That is rather an alarming figure. Before I conclude I should like to give two further quotations from my correspondence. One writer says: You will probably let yourself in for a lot of abuse from those self-styled dog lovers. Many of them leave their pets to feed from the dustbins. I do not know how they can justify their title. It would be much kinder to the dogs if they were not owned by people who let them loose on the highways; indeed, 1691 it would be a greater kindness in many cases if they were not born at all. Another writer says: I am convinced that half the owners of dogs are not dog lovers at all. The roads in this little seaside town are a disgrace and road accidents happen every day as a result of stray dogs. That confirms my argument.
I should like my hon. Friend to look very carefully into this most serious problem of dealing with unaccompanied dogs. I wonder what his road safety committees are doing about it. Have they run a campaign drawing the attention of dog lovers to the injury and loss of life that is caused week by week through their neglect? If not, I feel that it is high time it was done. Insufficient publicity has been given to this very important matter. My hon. Friend must set about tackling the problem. The real way of dealing with it is to raise the dog licence to two guineas a year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) asked me to be here this morning to reply to certain matters affecting the Ministry of Transport. He has roamed over four Departments other than mine—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Health, for which, of course, I am not competent to reply. I will confine myself to that aspect of his remarks which dealt with road safety.
One in 70 of personal injury accidents are attributable to dogs straying in the highway. In 1951, out of 178,417 accidents, 2,648 could be traced to this cause. In 1952, out of 171,757 accidents, the number was 2,596, a welcome reduction. In his study of this question my hon. Friend has doubtless read the report of the committee on the law of civil liability for damage done by animals which appeared in January of this year as a Command Paper. It would be interesting to know whether he agrees with the recommendation of this important committee over which the Lord Chief Justice presided, and particularly with their recommendation on third-party insurance.

§ Mr. Crouch
Yes, I do, but I feel that it is not insurance that will stop these 1692 accidents. That merely provides compensation. I believe that in many counties all accidents involving dogs are not reported, but only those where human beings are injured.

Mr. Braithwaite
I wanted to know how my hon. Friend regarded this important report, because it is useful evidence for us. As we see it, the solution to this problem lies in education and propaganda. There has been no relaxation on our part in that respect. I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the book published by the Ministry of Transport which deals with road accidents in 1951 and which contains a number of valuable illustrations, including one dealing with accidents involving dogs. The book has been circulated very largely throughout the country.
It is not possible for me to discuss possible legislation to increase the cost of licences or to deal with anything else. Even if it were possible on an Adjournment debate I should be infringing the rule of anticipation in that on the Order Paper for today there is a Bill to deal with attacks by dogs on farm animals. My hon. Friend's remarks on animal worrying would have been more appropriate to the Second Reading of that Bill, because I have no responsibility at all for dealing with that problem.
During the last two years, we have put on the back of a dog licence some most valuable suggestions and, indeed, exhortations on this topic. It would be helpful, and I throw this out as a suggestion to the public, if my remarks receive any publicity, if people, particularly tradespeople, would be careful about closing gates when visiting houses so that not only dogs, but children who are among the victims of road accident, could not stray into the highways.
My hon. Friend made a remark on the subject of the blind man's dog, with which I have considerable sympathy. He will appreciate that the argument in favour of that, strong as it is, runs counter to a great deal of what he said. In this case, it is the dog who leads his blind master along the road and not the master who leads the dog. Many dogs have a better road sense than many humans. To see them taking the blind across the zebra crossings is an encouraging spectacle to those of us interested in this matter.

§ Mr. Crouch
The dogs are trained.

Mr. Braithwaite
Dogs can also be trained to lead themselves. The answer is that all dogs should be trained, and many are.
The solution lies, as I have said earlier, in constant and untiring publicity. I am going to take this opportunity to enlist the good services of my hon. Friend in this matter. Since he gave notice of this Adjournment debate, I have been making some inquiries and I find that both Blandford and the Dorset County Council have set up road safety committees. I am, however, grieved to learn that both these bodies have been less active than many of their contemporaries and somewhat lacking in enthusiasm in this particular, important matter.
I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will expend some of his zeal for road safety in his own constituency. May I say to him, in all good temper, that 1694 energy, like charity, begins at home. This debate is taking place at an hour when human vitality is notoriously at its lowest. None the less, the Ministry of Transport will not weary of well doing, and I commend our example to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Crouch
May I point out that Dorchester is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my hon. Frend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Digby).

Mr. Braithwaite
I did not mention Dorchester. I said that Blandford and the Dorset County Council both have road safety committees and that we should like to see greater activity by them.