Class VIII, Vote 5

HC Deb 04 July 1984 vol 63 cc366-400

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a further sum not exceeding £95,152,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing administration; central administration including royal commissions, committees etc.; privatisation of hydraulics research station; the audit commission; payments in connection with licence fees; building construction and civil engineering research and environmental research and surveys. —[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

As the five remaining Estimates are all referred to in the second report of the Select Committee on the Environment, a joint debate on them will be permitted. Mr. Speaker has selected the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi.). That Class VIII, Vote 5 be reduced by £2 million in respect of Subhead DI (Dog and game licences). The amendment may be moved formally, if desired, at 10 o'clock, when all Questions necessary to dispose of the Estimates have to be put.

7.27 pm

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)

This is the first time that a Select Committee on the Environment report has been debated in the House since the new Select Committees were set up in 1979. The five Votes on the Order Paper encompass criticisms made by the Select Committee in respect of the Department of the Environment's main Estimates for 1984–85.

In fairness to the Department, I should say at once that each criticism is made in respect of a sum that is small in the context of the overall expenditure proposed by the Department, although not necessarily small by the standards of the majority of taxpayers.

However, each criticism raises a point of principle, which is why the House is being troubled with this matter.. The criticisms relate to parliamentary approval for expenditure being assumed by the Department rather than sought, to public money being wasted, to public money being spent in advance of need, or to administrative costs that seem excessive. In each case, the Committee thought it right that Parliament should exercise its control over public expenditure and bring these matters to the attention of the House.

The first Vote for consideration is Class VIII, Vote 5, relating to dog and game licences. The Department intends to pay £3.45 million to the Post Office for its services in collecting £750,000 in dog licence fees. That is a patent absurdity for which there cannot be any justification in revenue collection terms. Nor, apparently, is there any justification in licensing terms when it is learnt that about half the owners of dogs do not bother to take out licences and that no authority seems worried about that default or about taking steps to make sure that it is put right. Indeed, it is arguable that those breaking the law by not licensing their dogs are performing a public service by minimising the loss that occurs to the taxpayer each time a licence is issued.

I approach the whole question of dog licensing with a sense of déjà vu. It is 10 years almost to the month since I proposed a new clause, to what became the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to the effect that the responsibility for the issue of dog licences should be transferred to local authorities, which should be allowed to charge fees within limits laid down by the Secretary of State but sufficient to fund and provide a proper dog warden service for the care and control of dogs.

That new clause was tabled against a background in 1974 of public anxiety concerning toxicara canis, which causes blindness and liver damage, mainly to children, when worms penetrate the soles of the feet as a result of walking in areas where dogs have excreted; against a background of growing concern against rabies, which was then 200 miles from the Channel ports and approaching the coast of France by about 20 miles a year, and which I understand has now reached the Channel ports; against a background of vocal concern against packs of strays, in different parts of the United Kingdom attacking people; and against a background of the general disgust that was felt about the fouling of paths and parks, particularly in urban areas.

The intensity of the problem varied from area to area, so the proposal was that local authorities should each have discretion whether to take advantage of the right to create a dog warden service and to pay for it through a licensing system. In the event, that new clause was not debated. Instead, the Government gave an undertaking, which I accepted, to set up a working party on dogs, and that was set up in the same year.

That working party did not report until 1976. However, when it did report, it endorsed the dog warden concept, a service to be operated by local authorities and to be funded out of fees, with local authorities being able to charge dog owners. The working party found that there were 6 million dogs, of which 1 million were strays, which showed the size of the problem then.

It also pointed out that the fees had remained unchanged since 1878, when they were fixed at 7s. 6d., today's equivalent of 37½p, which is the present cost of a dog licence. The working party recommended in 1976 that the fee should be increased to £5 to provide the necessary service to take care of and control dogs.

Since 1976, no Government have done anything about the problem, save in Northern Ireland where, by coincidence, a dog licensing system of £5 was set up during the period when I was privileged to be Minister of State there. There were serious problems there because packs of wild dogs were savaging sheep across the countryside and causing a great deal of expenditure in compensating farmers for the loss that they were suffering.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a security argument in Northern Ireland in that it would not have been desirable to have farmers going about shooting packs of dogs?

Sir Hugh Rossi

That was an element in the situation, but the main worry was the need to control packs of wild dogs which were causing so much damage to the economy, and it was necessary to fund a scheme by which the authorities could deal with that problem.

Apart from what I have described, nothing was done. The problem came to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts, which, in its report to the House in 1982–83, strongly criticised what it called the futile collection of small sums of money in respect of less than half the dog population". That was in July of last year, and a Treasury minute in response said that "due consideration" would be given to that comment of the PAC. When the matter came before my Committee a few weeks ago, we referred to that exchange. The replies that we received from officials of the Department of the Environment were not encouraging. The best reply received was that the matter "remains under scrutiny".

We have a situation, therefore, in which a Committee of the House has criticised the futility of still collecting 37½p per dog, where the owner has condescended to take out a dog licence, with the Government having to pay the Post Office approaching £4 million to carry out that service.

For that reason, the amendment standing in my name and in that of members of the Select Committee would reduce the Vote by £2 million. In other words, we would not pay the Post Office for the remainder of the year, thereby suspending the service of the issue of dog licences. There does not seem to be any licensing need for it, and, in any event, why should money be thrown away on what another Committee has called a futile exercise? If the Minister cannot, when he replies, say either that the dog licence will be abolished altogether or that a sensible system will be introduced along the lines recommended by the working party, I hope that the House will join me in removing £2 million from the Vote.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

My hon. Friend made the sensible suggestion that the control of dogs, as a reasonable level of licence fee, should be devolved to local authorities. Perhaps to save him problems later, he would agree that it would be wise for local authorities to have discretion to reduce the rate of fee for dogs owned by pensioners.

Sir Hugh Rossi

I did not want to bore the House with all that I proposed in 1974. There was contained in my proposal then discretion for local authorities to grant exemptions in suitable cases, including not only the area to which my hon. Friend referred but, perhaps more important, guide dogs for the blind. I agree that certain exemptions would be necessary.

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend gave the staggering statistic that it costs five times more than the revenue received to collect the present dog licence fee. My hon. Friend was a distinguished Minister in Northern Ireland, but for some inexplicable reason he is no longer in office. How is the scheme working in Northern Ireland? Is the revenue well exceeding the cost of collection, and is it being used in the right way?

Sir Hugh Rossi

I made inquiries, in anticipation of being asked that question, but was told that it was too early for meaningful figures to be given. Therefore, I cannot answer my hon. Friend, although at the appropriate time the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could be asked a parliamentary question.

The British Board of Agrément comes under Class VIII, Vote 2, C6. Approval is assumed by the Department. The board has been operating without statutory cover since 1966. Throughout 18 years, successive Governments have intended that the board should move gradually and steadily to a self-financing basis, but that has never happened. A grant of £447,000 is required in the coming Estimates. We are told that the grant to the board in 1984–85 is expected to exceed expenditure in 1983–84 by almost 50 per cent.

The evidence seems to be that the board is not moving steadily to a self-financing position although pious hopes have been expressed in answer to our questions that that position may be reached by 1988. Even that expectation is based upon an increase in the real growth of fees plus a 10 per cent. per annum growth in business. It can be argued that those two concepts are self-cancelling or self-contradictory. However, those are the bases of the estimates that have been put before the house for its consideration.

The Committee makes two recommendations. First, the Department should produce a quicker and more certain path to viability for the board. Secondly, proper powers should be sought from Parliament to continue financial support beyond 1984–85. The Committee finds it unsatisfactory that such a board can operate without proper parliamentary authority and has done so since 1966 on a purely ad hoc basis.

Sub-head C13 deals with the London zoo. Over three years £4.9 million has been paid to the zoo by means of Supplementary Estimates without any provision being made in the main Estimates. The three years of indecision were suppose to allow the zoo to produce a break-even plan. However, an additional £2 million is required this year and we are told that more will be required next year. No clear view seems to have emerged on whether the society, as a learned body engaged in research, should receive Government financial support on a proper basis. We do not want to see the zoo sink under the weight of its financial problems, but taxpayers' money must be protected. We recommend that the Department carries out a review before next year's Estimates are presented, and that the position of the Zoological Society of London should be reconsidered if a continuing grant is needed. If so, proper powers should be sought from Parliament, especially if future capital projects require financial support. These are matters of proper accounting and accountability to the House and it seems that they have evaded the Department.

A criticism must be made of sub-head C9, which deals with grants to voluntary bodies. The Vote is rising from £300,000 to £1 million in one year. The Committee is supportive of the general intention that the Department of the Environment should give financial support to voluntary organisations that are undertaking work with which it is concerned. However, it is wrong that such expenditure should be undertaken without specific parliamentary authority and without statutory authority.

In making payments through the Vote in this way, we are being asked to grant a supply of money to Ministers for virtually undefined purposes. That is not acceptable. For many years the Department of Health and Social Security has provided moneys by way of aid to voluntary organisations under what are known as section 64 grants, for which there is proper statutory authority. We hope that the Department of the Environment will introduce proposals before next year's Estimates are produced.

Class VII, Vote 1 is headed "Housing, England (Department of the Environment)." The Committee's examination revealed that under sub-head A 1(1) the Department has been paying subsidy money to local authorities in advance of need. Expenditure was £113 million in 1982–83 and £23 million in 1983–84. Local authorities over claimed subsidy because of an unexpected fall in interest rates. The subsidies are paid to local authorities in 10 tranches a year. The Committee feels that greater effort could have been made in adjusting the tranches to ensure that the overpayments were not made which now require an adjustment to be made in this year's Estimates.

Class VIII, Vote 1 deals with "Local Environmental Services, etc., England". Oral evidence was that the Vote allowed too much provision for inflation. The witnesses subsequently corrected the figures. We welcome the Department's assurance that the Vote will be monitored more closely in future and that corrective action will be taken when needed.

The royal palaces and royal parks are dealt with under Class VIII, Vote 4. The Committee found that administrative costs were excessive. Two new bodies have been established, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Board of Trustees of the Tower Armouries. The Estimate showed that the administrative costs of the new bodies might not be under proper control and might be consuming too much of the resources that have been allocated. A glance at table 2 on page 52 will explain our cause for concern. Salaries have increased from £5.7 million in 1982–83, to £6.4 million in 1983–84, and to £11.78 million in 1984–85. General administrative expenditure has increased from £1.5 million in 1982–83 to £4.7 million in 1983–84 and to £5.1 million in 1984–85. When pressed, the witnesses in oral evidence told the Committee: This table will not do and we are going to have to submit …a revised estimate. As a result, we have a new set of figures in the revised Estimates in table 2 at page 73. The Committee is concerned that completely inaccurate figures for the expenditure in 1982–83 and 1983–84 were given to Parliament when the Estimates were presented. If the Department does not know until close questioning takes place how much money has been spent under sub-heads in previous years, it becomes difficult to assess the need for provision in the current year.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the sums that I have mentioned are relatively small when compared with the gross expenditure of the Department of the Environment. They should not be regarded in too exaggerated a way and we should not lose our sense of proportion. The Committee welcomed the dialogue that it had with Department officials and the explanatory memoranda that they submitted to it, which greatly assisted in pinpointing the errors which were eventually discovered and which I am criticising now. There has been much co-operation, but the Department has been put on notice that a number of arrangements need to be reviewed before it presents next year's Estimates. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with it.

7.49 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I shall not follow too closely the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), and certainly not what he said about dog licences. I noted that he said very little about game licences, which is a matter of some interest. However, I shall not participate in that debate as I know that other hon. Members will.

We are discussing not only the second report from the Select Committee but the Estimates, and in particular Class VII, Vote 1, which is the one about which I shall speak. It concerns expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services. In other words, we have the opportunity and the right to examine the Government's attitude to housing when they drew up the Estimates. It is important that we spend a little time on this.

On page 51 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1984–85 to 1986–87", in the section on housing, it says: The Government's policy priorities for housing are:

1. (i)to increase the level of home ownership;
2. (ii)to encourage the repair and improvement of existing stock; and
3. (iii)to concentrate public resources within the housing programme on capital provision for those in greatest housing need."

I shall examine that last point first. Page 53 shows that the number of permanent new dwellings completed have gone down steadily, as has the money available for local authorities. Page 50 shows that the total general subsidies will be down from £945 million to £703 million. The total current expenditure is also down.

We are told that total capital expenditure will be the same, but increased inflation means that, in real terms, there will be a reduction. It is this about which we are concerned, as it is a reduction in housing. The Government have to answer some important questions. Something that has been floating around for some time, which I know is greatly worrying the construction industry, is the question whether there will be a moratorium. I am constantly getting letters from various bodies that are worried about this and the effect that this will have on the construction industry. We are entitled to have some early replies on this matter.

In its election manifesto for the last general election campaign, the Labour party made it clear that Britain faces a major housing crisis. We put forward our policy on this. We also said: The Tory recession has seriously damaged the construction industry…Nearly 400,000 construction workers are on the dole. While private sector housing has improved, public sector housing has gone from bad to worse. Now, in local authorities, people want homes but the waiting lists are getting longer and longer and more and more people are suffering as a result.

I am glad to see the Minister of Housing and Construction in his place. He recently went to my city of Liverpool, having been preceded by the Secretary of State. When the latter went round the city he said that he had never seen worse housing in all Europe. The Minister said that the position in Liverpool was the same as in other great cities. Let us take those two statements together, as they are not entirely contradictory, and assume that they are both correct. That means that the Government should be pumping more money into the construction industry. They should be helping local authorities on a much greater scale than they are, so that local authorities can build more homes, get more repairs done and achieve a better housing programme.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow)

The hon. Gentleman is not quoting accurately, although he was not purporting to do so, either from what I said or from what my right hon. Friend said. I am sure that he would want to make that clear to the House.

Mr. Heffer

I do not have the exact words in front of me, but I took the quotations from the Liverpool Echo. I am not saying that I got the exact words, but the idea of both those statements was there. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the housing problems of Liverpool and other great cities are extremely bad. That is causing immense hardship, many difficulties, much anxiety and worry, the break-up of homes, young people moving into overcrowded conditions with their parents and so on. In our debate on the Estimates, the Opposition are saying that the Government's policy of reduction is not acceptable and must be reversed.

Volume 1 of the Government's Expenditure Plans, page 6, says: The revised net provision of £2,500 million for 1984–85 is a reduction of £490 million compared with Cmnd. 8789. That is for the previous year. It continues: The new level of gross capital provision is broadly the same in cash terms as that for 1983–84. That means that, because of inflation, there will be a reduction. It continues: The net provision for 1985–86 and 1986–87 is £2,610 million and £2,680 million respectively. That for 1985–86 is a net reduction of £500 million compared with Cmnd. 8789". That is an important point in these Estimates that must be put on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) dealt with the Housing Defects Bill. He pointed out that people who live in privately owned accommodation will get assistance to deal with the defects in that accommodation, but local authorities, which need such assistance, will not get any separate financial assistance and will have to pay for improvements out of HIP allocation. That is bound to affect the future provision of homes.

We felt that we had to draw attention, in this very important debate on the Estimates, to the serious situation that exists in housing and construction. I say in all seriousness to the Government that, after just over one year in office, they must revise their whole attitude to the construction industry. If they fail to do so, the situation will go from bad to worse. We shall end up with very few apprentices, so that when there is an upturn we shall not have the skill that is required in the industry. I notice the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who often disagrees with me, nodding his head in assent. We ask the Government to change their attitude to the construction and housing industries.

8 pm

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)

I wish to speak to Class VIII, Vote V, subhead D1, dealing with dog licences. We all know the background to the dog licence scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) spelt it out yet again, but the problem is becoming a matter of folklore. Since 1878 the dog licence has cost 7s. 6d.—37½p since 1971. Only half the dog owners pay for licences.

What is not so well known is the lack of responsibility within Government for the dog licence fees, collection and rates. In my innocence I tried to table a question on dog licence fee rates and I thought that the Home Office would have responsibility for it. I was told that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was responsible for dog licences and fees. I then tried to table a question to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I was told that I could not do it because it was a Revenue matter, and therefore a matter for the Treasury and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his annual Budget Statement. Information concerning the cost of collecting the dog licence fees can be found only in the Estimates before the House which, happily, we are at long last debating tonight.

The Select Committee on the Environment has done the House a service by exposing the fact that the cost to the taxpayer of collecting dog licences is now this year £3.4 million. The question that the Select Committee had in its mind—and which I am sure all hon. Members wishing to speak on the subject have in their minds—is: why do we need dog licence fees? What is their purpose? Are they to raise revenue or are they to control the dog population? Or are they supposed to do both? The answers that the officials gave in reply to questions showed—I hope that I am not being unfair to them—that basically it was a question of raising revenue, although they rather unhappily describe the revenue as regrettably now of a negative amount". I would have hoped that we have dog licences primarily to control the dog population, and that that should govern our thinking on the matter. There are too many instances in our constituencies of dogs fouling footpaths, playing fields and parks; of dogs causing enormous danger to traffic by roaming the streets. That danger is caused not only to traffic but to passengers who are properly going about their duties in vehicles which have suddenly to brake because of the natural instinct to avoid danger to an animal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has properly drawn to the attention of the House the fact that rabies is now almost at the French coast. Many experts fear and believe that it is only a matter of time before it gets into Britain. I hope that they are wrong. Certainly, the proper control of dogs will lessen the possibility of rabies getting a hold. It will be easier to deal with stray dogs if they are licensed and if a sensible fee is paid for the privilege—and if a hefty fine is imposed if the owner fails to take out a licence.

There should be a sensible fee for a dog licence. The fee should go to the bodies in the community most affected by the activities of dogs — in other words, local authorities, not the state, should be entitled to charge for and issue dog licences. There should be a fee of about £10 and a fine for those in default. If local authorities were able not only to collect the fee but to collect the fine where the fee is not paid it would be an encouragement to them and would also provide them with the funds to provide dog wardens and to keep their streets, playing fields and parks clean.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green was properly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There would, of course, need to be proper exemptions, and I would not like anyone, in listening to or reading the debate, to think that the Tories or anybody else were proposing, willy-nilly, a flat rate fee for a licence, without any exemptions. Naturally, the people who need dogs—the blind, the handicapped and old-age pensioners —would be exempt. But I still believe that, even though people were exempt from the licence fees, they should nevertheless be obliged to take out a licence. Such a fee and such an arrangement would encourage those who do not really want to have a dog to dispose of it.

In many cases, dog owners keep dogs in conditions falling not far short of cruelty, caged up and unwanted. Consequently, the dogs howl through the night, to the great annoyance of neighbours and residential neighbourhoods. Those are complaints that I get from areas in my constituency. If the keeping of a dog was a privilege for which people paid, only people who wanted a dog would take the trouble to have one, and those who did not care for the animals at all would dispose of them.

In the answers to questions put at the Select Committee meeting we were told that the Government are considering what to do about dog licences. I hope that the debate will concentrate the minds of those in Government who are supposed to be thinking about them, because our evidence is that that thinking is singularly lacking in concentration so far. Witnesses knew of no papers that were being studied and of no work being done. The matter was said to be "under consideration". That seemed to the Committee to be a euphemism for saying that someone was sitting on his or her hands about the whole matter and would, until prodded, continue to do so. The debate highlights the scandal of this expensive inactivity. I hope that it will take a few bottoms off a few hands and produce action along the lines that I have suggested.

8.9 pm

Mr. Michael Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has referred to the dog licence scandal. We are all only too well aware of the problem, having read the evidence given to the Select Committee. The evidence shows how stupid the whole system has become. If the purpose of a licence is to control the dog-owning population, the present licensing laws are inadequate. An increase in the licence fee would go far towards solving the problem. The RSPCA kennels in any constituency show that the most expensive clogs suffer from the cruelty about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. This week I visited an RSPCA kennel in my area. I was horrified to see the condition of two dogs—a sheepdog and a red setter, two of the most expensive dogs it is possible to buy. Both were less than two years old and had suffered especially badly from the actions of owners who did not give a damn about the conditions in which the dogs were kept.

There must be an increase in the dog licence fee. The hon. Member for Newark suggested a figure of £10, but I believe that £5 would be more appropriate. There should be exceptions for those categories of people who rely heavily on a dog—the blind who need a dog as an aid to sight and the elderly who depend on a dog as a companion. I hope that the Government, in looking seriously at this problem, will come up with a licence system providing protection not only for the rest of the public who do not own dogs but for dogs themselves. That is why some of the money raised from an increased dog licence fee must be put back into the community, offering improved facilities for those who have dogs and those who do not. That would enable people to enjoy our parks and open spaces without having the problems that are readily apparent in any municipal park or open area.

It is a disgrace that we have allowed this system to continue for so long unamended, with no one prepared to do anything about the problem. We should do certain things immediately. Pet shops should be more strictly licensed. If a licence is to mean anything, someone must apply and pay for it in advance of buying the dog. It should be illegal for a pet shop to sell a dog without having obtained a licence. A pet shop should not be permitted to sell a dog to anyone under 16. There should be a national neutering and spaying campaign in co-operation with many of the animal societies, many of which wholeheartedly support that approach.

It is interesting to note that an answer to one question revealed that it is estimated that there are 200,000 stray dogs. Some people felt that that was a conservative estimate and that the figure approached 1 million. It is horrifying to think that there is such a number of stray dogs or dogs that are not properly cared for. Anyone who genuinely cares about animal welfare should be worried about the way in which animals are turned on to the streets and left there.

My city has tried desperately to come to grips with the problem. It is sad that Portsmouth was not quoted in the evidence. The Select Committee asked whether dogs ran in packs. Parks and many of the open spaces surrounding the city were repeatedly inundated with packs of dogs terrorising the community. The introduction of a dog warden was not an effective measure, but at least it went some way towards alleviating the problem. In its wisdom the council decided to spend about £20,000 on an experiment to do something about proper policing of the parks to ensure that dogs were looked after properly by their owners, and that dogs which did not have someone responsible for their welfare at the time of entering a park were collected by the dog warden.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such expenditure by Portsmouth, which is in danger of potential rate capping by the Government, would be regarded by the Government as profligate and wasteful and that the authority might incur penalties because of its sensible steps?

Mr. Hancock

I agree with that statement, but we would be barking up the wrong tree if we did not believe that the Government would take this matter seriously. The problems of rate capping and dog licensing concern us all. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on not only Portsmouth but other local authorities that are threatened by the same procedure.

It is always a shame that dogs get a bad name when their owners walk away scot free, unabashed about the nuisance that has been caused. Those hon. Members who have received the report on dogs from the British Veterinary Association must be sympathetic to its point about licensing. I hope that the responsible Minister will take on board many of the association's points, which I genuinely believe go a long way towards allaying the fears of many hon. Members and the community generally.

The experiment in Portsmouth will last for six months and will cost the local authority £20,000. Many measures before the council were in danger of being considered lavish or being done for the wrong reason. The plan to conduct an experiment was one of the few measures that was unopposed in the city council. It was a completely non-political idea. Everyone felt that it was a valiant attempt to do something about a difficult problem.

I hope that the Government will come to grips with the problem of dog licensing. I hope also that the Government will not take steps for the reasons that were given to the Select Committee. The Select Committee asked why licence fees were collected — for revenue or as a licensing procedure. In answering the question, the officials fished around for what to say. In the end, reluctantly they said that the licence fee was collected to provide revenue. Having read the report of the proceedings, I feel that the officials would have liked to say that they hoped to do a service for the community which, sadly, the present licensing fee does not do.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Newark, myself and other hon. Members. I draw his attention especially to the letter from the British Veterinary Association which spells out the issues and gives us an opportunity to introduce a realistic licence fee, with obvious exceptions to guard those who cannot afford the fee or need a dog for the reasons that I have established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take on board also the Government's ability to help local authorities to provide better facilities for the dog-owning population. It would be stupid of all of us if we did not recognise that far too many animals are not cared for. That is gross irresponsibility by owners who neglect animals.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about the problems of housing. It is difficult for me as a Member who has just been elected not to use this opportunity to speak about my constituency. Only yesterday the housing investment programme for Portsmouth was discussed. It is a laudable programme, offering hope and a chance for housing measures to be taken. It offers nowhere near enough, and that is always the case. The increasing housing waiting lists in Portsmouth are apparent for anyone to see, and it must be the same in every large city. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw a comparison between the problems in Liverpool and those elsewhere.

The underlying threat running through the discussions in Portsmouth this year and last was the axe hanging over the housing investment programme and the risk that the Government would step in and cut expenditure at a time when local authorities are doing their utmost to support their communities.

Perhaps the key function of a local authority is to provide a decent environment and decent homes for people to live in. Housing investment programmes try to deal with that. Regrettably, however, there is the threat of expenditure being cut off. For owner-occupiers, the threat to improvement grants will mean ever-increasing delays and in some instances no hope of ever improving very old houses. A moratorium or a cut in the housing investment programme will leave those on long waiting lists equally without hope and paying very high rents to Rachman-style landlords.

I urge all Conservative Members who have any influence with the Government to state clearly that housing investment programmes must be honoured. The Government should make it clear that they have no intention, this year or next, of cutting even further into an area of provision that has already been savaged beyond belief.

8.20 pm

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire)

I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the highways and byways of his constituency but take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who opened for the Opposition on this matter.

First, however, I believe that the House should express its gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for securing a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, on which I had the privilege to serve in the last Parliament. One of the most frustrating aspects of serving on that Committee was that the House never seemed to debate its reports.

I wish to deal briefly with Class VIII Vote 5 relating to the Audit Commission, Class VII Vote 1 relating to improvements in investment and, if time permits, Class VIII Vote 1 on assistance for the construction industry.

In March this year, the Audit Commission published a report on council housing and rent arrears which showed that local authorities were owed £250 million in short-term, medium-term and long-term rent arrears. I wish that the House could find time to debate that report, too, and draw attention to the authorities guilty of mismanaging their housing stock and failing to collect rental income which could be recycled to provide the improvements and new homes to which the hon. Member for Walton referred. Certainly I hope that the Select Committee will take that matter on board.

The Government have every reason to be proud of their record on home improvements. The hon. Member for Walton failed to mention the Labour Government's record. In the first four years of the Conservative Administration, renovations exceeded 160,000 per year —30 per cent. more than the average in the last four years of the Labour Government. The 90 per cent. repairs grant introduced in the 1982 Budget proved almost too great a success and in 1983 renovations reached an all-time high of 380,000. As a result of that policy, significant progress has been made in reducing the number of dwellings lacking basic amenities such as hot water, bathrooms and inside sanitation. In 1981, there were 900,000 such properties. The hon. Member for Walton failed to inform the House that in 1976, when I believe that he was a Minister, the number of houses lacking those basic amenities was 1.5 million. There is, however, still room for improvement and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction here today, as he has done so much in travelling around the country encouraging local authorities and building contractors to take up the initiatives introduced by the Government.

Unfortunately, the problem of disrepair is worsening. More than 1 million homes are now in a serious state of disrepair compared with 860,000 in 1976. The English house condition survey of 1981 contains disturbing evidence suggesting that grants are not always directed to the people or properties most genuinely in need of them. That is why I believe that the Government's initiative in increasing improvement grants to 90 per cent. was in some ways counter-productive in that, sadly, some of the money seems to have fallen into the wrong hands. The survey states: the worst stratum is increasingly the province of long-term residents with limited economic resources or opportunities…It seems likely that the rate of turnover of lower quality housing is decreasing and, if inducements fail in motivating existing residents, the result will be less action on the worst housing, whilst the better condition stock will continue to receive a disproportionately large share of expenditure in relation to its need". Morever, when grant-aided work is carried out, lack of proper supervision and, sadly, the prevalence of cowboy operators mean that the job done often does not represent the best possible value for money.

All those problems must be tackled if we are to make serious inroads into the problem of housing decay. I trust that the Minister agrees that the first priority must be to reiterate the Government's commitment to tackle the problem and to back that commitment with an adequate, stable, continuous and regular flow of funds. Nothing is more costly and disruptive than the stop-go policies pursued by Governments in the past. Improvement policy requires long-term initiatives and a long-term commitment by the Government that the problem will remain a major priority.

It is not necessarily the province of local councils to provide homes. I believe that the nation's housing problem can be solved through a partnership between the public sector and the private sector—between local authorities, building societies, building contractors, housing associations, trusts, and so on. Grants should be paid only against invoices and local authorities should be encouraged to operate lists of approved contractors so that householders may have some confidence in their choice of builder and some sanction against poor workmanship. The Government should also take action to concentrate expenditure on the people and properties most genuinely in need. That can be achieved only if the grant applications system is simplified and stripped of inordinate bureaucratic delay and complicated form-filling.

Local authorities should be encouraged to make far greater use of the innovative techniques of improvement pioneered by some authorities — techniques such as enveloping, block grants, housing improvement zones and so on. Some of the most imaginative and successful schemes rely on a partnership beween local authorities, residents, private sector building contractors, and so on. That is the way to reverse the decay of our housing stock. Some of these schemes may be more costly to operate than one-off improvement schemes, but the gains in reliable workmanship and the renovation of whole areas of needy housing instead of the pepperpot approach of one-off improvement grants more than justify the additional cost.

The problem of housing decay is daunting. The Government have taken the right step to stop the rot, but far more needs to be done to garner existing funds identified in the Estimates so as to ensure that more properties are properly improved and thus halve the spiral of decay.

8.29 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I begin by addressing a few remarks to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It is a little sad that he did not reflect on the difficulties faced by some council tenants when they get into rent arrears. No doubt he has the possibility of getting an overdraft from the bank when he wants it. He is probably able to overcome difficulties by using plastic money. He should remember, however, that many council tenants do not have the opportunity to borrow money. It is very tempting for them to get a week or two behind with their rent. Then, if they are faced with unemployment or some other problem, they get into difficulties that they cannot easily overcome. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that many people end up in debt in circumstances for which it would be hard for us to blame them.

In the past 15 months many people have been told that they are in debt because of the administration of the new housing benefit system. It is very easy for housing authorities to say that they have processed applications in, say, three or four months and that applicants will receive financial help. They then say that applicants will not actually receive anything, because they are three months in arrears with their rent. We must consider those problems too.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the allocation of money for home improvements. I am especially concerned about the two local authorities covering my constituency—Tameside and Stockport. I know that many people are suffering because of the reduction in the amount of money available to those local authorities for home improvements. In Tameside especially, there are numerous examples of most of the house-owners in a street taking advantage of the improvement grants, but of one or two house-owners not doing so. Clearly, to make the investment by the community in the first phase of the grants beneficial, the remaining one or two houses in those streets should be improved as well.

However, when those house-owners apply for an improvement grant, they find that they will receive less financial help and it may not be possible for them to proceed with the work. In many cases they will not be given money. That causes me considerable concern. In many cases we shall waste the effort that has been put into improving the houses, or even the first set of houses in a terrace, if we cannot complete the process.

There are people in Stockport whose houses desperately need work done to them. Their owners are in considerable difficulty. I know one old lady who has been Informed by her insurance company that it can no longer consider insuring her roof because it is in such a bad state. She has been putting off her application for a grant for the past three years because she is frightened of the upset and upheaval to her house. She has been convinced that she must have some work done to get the roof put right and have work done to prevent the damp penetration into the plaster in the lower rooms. She went to the council, but it said, "Sorry, there is not the money because the Government have cut back the amount available."

I plead with the Government to examine the amount of money available in the housing investment programme that local authorities can use for home improvements. I ask them to consider particularly the amount of money that is available for Tameside and Stockport. I remind the Minister that he received a deputation only a few months ago from other hon. Members from the Stockport area, who passed upon him the problems of that area. Stockport's problems and those of Tameside are fairly typical of those of many local authorities in the north-west.

I also note that the Estimates include reference to the amount of money available to the Nature Conservancy for it to spend on the countryside. We heard yesterday in the House of the discussions about Halvergate. The strategy that the Government set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not working because they are not prepared to put up the money to make the legislation work. Many of us argued when that legislation went through the House that the spirit of the legislation would not be followed unless the Government provided enough money. Some of us offered alternatives, which did not involve bribing farmers to do what they should do anyway. The Government said that that was unnecessary and, with a little encouragement and a small amount of money being made available, they could achieve the right ends. They have not achieved those ends. That has been clearly demonstrated in the past month by the position in Halvergate. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Estimates and to tell us how much money will be available for the rest of this year to ensure that we do not have another scandal such as that at Halvergate.

My main emphasis is on the issue that was raised originally by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir. H. Rossi)—dog licences. That is a clear example of an administrative disgrace and of political cowardice. I hope that we shall give the Government sufficient encouragement in the debate to get on and do something about the problem now. I make a particular plea to Ministers. If the Government are approaching an election, it is tempting to do nothing about dog licences. I do not say that because I believe that anyone would turn his dogs on the Minister as he came up the path to knock on the door during canvassing, but because If the licence fee is increased just before an election people will not appreciate the impact of the new licence fee. They will not have had time to see the benefits that most hon. Members would argue should come from a proper dog warden service. If the Minister dealt with the problem now there might be resentment in the next month or two while the new licence and enforcement procedure were introduced. But I suggest that there would be two or more years afterwards in which people would see the benefits of a proper dog warden service. By the time the election came the dog licence would no longer be an issue. It is important for us to do something now.

Britain is supposed to be a nation of dog lovers, but I suspect that we are really a nation of dog neglecters. It appalls me to see the problems created by uncaring dog owners. I realise that some people would argue that to put up the licence fee would penalise those who care and are concerned for their dogs, and would do little for those who neglect dogs and show little concern for them. I believe that most people who care about their dogs would pay the licence fee willingly if they thought that it would reduce the great suffering that people inflict on dogs.

It is most important to stop somebody acquiring a dog if he is likely to neglect it. Sadly, the largest group that acquire dogs and then neglect them is children. We all know the way in which the young become enthused with their new toys, which last for perhaps seven or eight days and then lie in a cupboard or a corner and are often neglected for long periods. The trouble is that a pet cannot be treated in that way. It must be cared for and its owner must show concern for it. The child must continue to be concerned for the dog after seven or eight days. The pet must go on attracting the care and attention of children for long periods.

It is difficult for a parent to resist pressures from the children to take on ownership of a pet. It is easy, if a child wants to buy a pet from a pet shop, for a parent to say that the child must save up. If the child does not maintain his enthusiasm and ends up spending his money on something else, the pet is never bought. Too often, a dog is acquired from the boy or girl down the road because there is a set of puppies in a particular household and the child thinks that the puppies are very attractive. He is told that he can have one of them. The parent can really say nothing other than that the child can have the dog.

It would be very helpful if parents could tell their children that dog ownership is expensive. First, one has to save up for the licence. Many people forget that it is quite expensive to keep a dog properly, especially in urban areas.

We must convince youngsters to stop and think before taking on the ownership of a dog. They must also recognise that it is expensive to own a dog. If we make it a little more expensive by raising the licence fee, and ensure that that licence is obtained before someone takes on a dog, that may stop children and parents from being pressurised into ownership without first having worked out the full consequences both for themselves and their neighbours.

People have highlighted the problem of dogs for the past 10 years, but the Government have offered no help. Time and time again those working in casualty departments have told me about the number of people suffering from dog bites with whom they must deal. The bites may not be serious, but they cause youngsters and adults considerable distress. It is necessary to give injections and other treatment, which all costs money.

The disease carried by dog dirt has been often mentioned in the House. It is very unpleasant when a youngster comes into the house, having walked along a pavement, with dog excreta on his shoes. I vividly remember one of my constituents telling me that when he slid into the corner of the rugby pitch to make his try, he found that having put down the ball he had than to remove dog dirt from his hair. He was bitter that someone obviously regularly exercised his dog on the rugby pitch, with no thought for the consequences. As he said, the person probably used the rugby pitch because he did not want to exercise the dog in his garden because of the problems that might cause.

Dogs cause road accidents. They run on to the road and drivers automatically brake, irrespective of the fact that another driver may run into their car or that the car may swerve to the side of the road, perhaps hurting someone other than the dog.

During the past eight years, I have been concerned about sheep worrying. Anyone seeing a field of sheep being worried by a dog or pack of dogs, and witnessing their agony as they run around and around, would be appalled. Not only the sheep are attacked, however. In many urban fringes the dogs attack cattle, ponies and other animals. For a number of years hon. Members asked a series of parliamentary questions about the number of animals killed or seriously injured by dogs. What did the Government do? They decided to help the problem by stopping collecting information. We now have no up-to-date information available. The evidence I have from the National Farmers Union and other groups is that the problem is as bad now as it was then. We must take action to reduce that problem, especially sheep worrying. We must control the number of stray dog packs that roam around the Countryside and urban fringes.

I do not want to discuss the problem of rabies, but most people are frightened of the consequences for human beings. There could also be horrific consequences for wildlife if that disease crossed the Channel. Animals would suffer great misery and many would have to be destroyed.

The Minister should consider the number of dogs that we destroy each day in this country. The last figure available to me was 200 a day. If the Minister lined up 200 dogs at St. Stephen's entrance and told people that that was the number being destroyed each day, there would be overwhelming pressure for action. No one wants to destroy that many dogs, yet it happens.

We must increase the licence fee—certainly to £5, but possibly to £10. When the working party reported in 1976–77 it said that an increase to £5 would mean that it would not need to be raised again for many years. It is important that we get the fee right. Firm advice must be given to local authorities to spend the money from those fees on a warden service. It is important that the dogs are licensed as soon as they change ownership and that a tag is put on the collar so that the dog can be identified from some distance away as being licensed.

There is the will both in the House and in the country for the Government to take on the difficult task, raise the licence fee and ensure that there is an effective dog warden service to reduce the many nuisances to which I have referred. We must also educate people to ensure that we are genuinely a nation of dog lovers and not a nation of dog neglecters.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that the Front Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye at 9.25 pm. The debate must conclude at 10 pm. Therefore, we have about 40 minutes remaining with six hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. The arithmetic will be obvious.

8.46 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I wish to say how pleased I am to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who has been a leading campaigner in this area and has had many sensible things to say on the subject over a significant period. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has given the House an opportunity to look again at the issues of dogs, dog control and dog licences. We are currently confronted with a nonsense—a licence that costs four times as much to raise as it raises, which is absolutely stupid, and the act of omission in obtaining a dog licence that is probably as great as, if not greater than, the act of commission.

We must be wary of the siren voices that suggest that we should get rid of the dog licence altogether. We have a real and growing problem of dog control. It is not only a real and growing problem; it is well recognised, especially by the House. When we last had the opportunity to debate the subject there was a large majority of three and a half to one in favour of introducing sensible measures in that area. We also know that the National Farmers Union, for obvious reasons, is in favour of retaining the dog licence. It provides some system of tracing the marauding dogs that cause so much harm and damage to livestock. Some 10,000 farm animals are savaged each year, two thirds of which subsequently die.

We have heard from the British Veterinary Association how it believes that the retention of the dog licence system would help to provide a proper legal framework and system for the control of dogs. We have heard that rabid dogs are growling at us from the other side of the Channel and we must beware very much in case some of them come across to join us. Although some may say that we should do away with the licence system, I think that that would be dangerous.

As has been said in the debate, dogs are man's best friends. They bring a great deal of pleasure and comfort if cared for and looked after responsibly. But, sadly, the puppy bought at Christmas — that beautiful gorgeous puppy—for the child of the family soon becomes the unwanted stray, the latchkey dog that is allowed to roam the streets and cause problems for so many others. Many problems have been mentioned — for example, the unfortunate rugby player, the yapping dog in the house next door and the marauding packs.

There are other problems. When I was canvassing in my constituency recently I met three elderly people who dared not come to their doors because people in the locality left their dogs out during the day when they went to work, and if they came to the door a great dog would bound up to them. They were terrified. We must devise a system to control such problems.

I have suggested previously — I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about this when he replies — that as the problem is different in different parts of the country local people may wish to deal with the problem differently, and instead of a great central system, which would involve additional bureaucracy and tax, we should, within guidelines, let each local authority decide on its own system and dog licence fee. The money so raised should be spent on the control and welfare of dogs.

Many hon. Members have spoken about cruelty to dogs, of dogs which have been loved and left, and about neglected and suffering dogs. If we had a system of dog wardens paid for by local authorities from money raised through the licence—not through Parliament, additional taxation, or through additional burdens on local authorities, which they cannot fund—we could control the dog nuisance and the owner who did not look after the dog, and we could provide advice, assistance and education to prevent much of the suffering.

Many dog lovers would gladly contribute to such a system. I have been involved in this subject for some time and I have received much correspondence from dog lovers. The overwhelming number of them have said, "Go ahead, Mr. Marlow. Push it. We would be happy to spend more on our licence if dogs were properly looked after and if there were a proper system for dogs."

My hon. Friend has taken a sympathetic interest in the subject, and I regret what Opposition Members have said. He understands the subject well and would like to do something about it. He should be bold and brave, and grasp the bone. He will find that there is overwhelming support, especially from the dog loving public, to move in the direction suggested by many hon. Members.

8.54 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I am pleased that the Government made time for this debate on the Estimates of the Department of the Environment and on the Select Committee's report. The extremely important items of expenditure which come under the heading in the Estimates for the Department of the Environment too rarely succeed in getting an airing. Although I fully accept the importance of the issue concerning dog licences, recognise the valuable work done by dog wardens who are employed by the borough of Islington, and endorse the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I wish to deal with other items in the Estimates. They relate to the expenditure of the Housing Corporation in support of housing associations.

The Select Committee report draws attention to that item of expenditure. Many important matters must be raised. As with local authorities, though less severely in the case of the Housing Corporation, the amount of investment which housing associations can make in new and renovated houses has been substantially reduced during the past four years. It is said that the cutback in housing investment, which has marked the Government's terms of office, has affected housing associations, albeit less, in the same way as local authorities.

I shall make three points relating to the funding of housing associations and to the Estimates. First, the way in which the funding of housing association grant schemes operates, the year-to-year mechanism which is used for supplying the Housing Corporation with sufficient funds, and the way in which allocations are made to the corporation and to individual housing associations, are still based too much on an ad hoc year-by-year arrangement. The Committee examined those items and decided not to make a judgment on the matter until after the full review. Will the Government consider different ways of operating the housing grant funding mechanism?/

It would be more sensible to operate the mechanism in the same sort of way that local authorities operate—that is, money is made available to the Housing Corporation, and through it to housing associations, which are then told to go and spend it according to their priorities and the strategic housing plans that local authorities draw up for their areas. That would be more sensible than the scheme-by-scheme operation. It involves too much double scrutiny by the Housing Corporation and the Department of the Environment, and enormous fluctuations in funding available to the Housing Corporation and to individual associations on the year-by-year basis. I appeal to the Government carefully and thoroughly to consider the possibilities of changing the funding mechanism.

Secondly, in evidence presented to the Select Committee, Department of the Environment officials demonstrated clearly—this is on pages 18 and 19 of the back notes to the report—that there was a surge in expenditure relating to the 1982–83 increase in approvals for new schemes through the Housing Corporation given at that time. The point which worried me when we interviewed the officials, and which still worries me, is that that surge in expenditure may not, because of the long-term nature of housing project expenditure, come through fully into Government cash spending until the next financial year.

If a substantial amount of that surge in expenditure will arise in the 1985–86 financial year, we have the right to remind the Government of that fact, and ask them whether they intend to make provision for that when they come to consider the Estimates for the next financial year. In particular, will they ensure that sufficient funds are made available to the Housing Corporation so that new projects can be undertaken at least at existing levels when we come to the expectations for the next year and the amount of money that is made available to the Housing Corporation? Committed expenditure following through from this year or last into next year can carve an enormous slice from the Housing Corporation budget. I am especially interested in what is left for new schemes.

If the Government were minded, as I sincerely hope that they are not, to introduce a moratorium later in the current financial year on capital spending and on the start of new construction work when the schemes reach tender stage, and if they were minded to impose that upon the housing association movement, they are building in yet more expectation for the next financial year, which may well cut still further into the amount of money available for new schemes. I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Government, if not now at some time during the course of the next few months, that they intend the number of new schemes undertaken by the housing association movement to be at least the same next year as they are this year.

The Select Committee dealt with the sum of £350,000, which appeared to have been allocated to cover sites that has been acquired by housing associations but had, subsequently, under Government instruction to be sold. That sum — small in comparison with the overall Estimates with which we are dealing but, nonetheless, a significant figure—had been incurred, apparently, as a loss on sites that had had to be sold. The Select Committee recommends that in future when such sales and disposals are contemplated more account should be taken of whether they are likely to incur a loss to the public purse. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation on board.

In those three specific ways, I hope that over the course of the next few months the Government will study the expenditure of the Housing Corporation, the way in which the valuable work done by housing associations is funded, and the overall level of that funding. Just as with local authorities, it is inadequate at present and the number of desperately needed homes which could be provided and which are not being provided is scandalous. I hope that when the Government consider next year's Estimates they will also take that point on board.

Hope springs eternal. I somehow doubt whether the Government will be moved by such a plea but, nonetheless, I hope that they may just for once consider it, and the homeless and badly housed people who could be helped by such expenditure.

9.1 pm

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)

I shall speak on the subject of dog licences because I am one of the only two remaining members of the Public Accounts Committee that considered the matter in 1982. It is a good, if small, example of the way that Select Committees can work together. I support the general feelings that have been expressed by members of the Select Committee when considering the matter, but we were not considering the danger to animals in the countryside, to old people in urban areas and the messes in residential areas; we were considering the matter from the financial point of view.

When considering the subject, we went back into history and discovered the long lineage of the tax on dogs and the fact that the present licence fee had been fixed long ago; that it was originally established to earn money for the nation; that that revenue had been put to local authority use; and, now, that it was costing the country money.

Restricting ourselves to the value-for-money exercise, we questioned representatives from the Departments to try to find out the purpose of the licence. I am afraid that the answers left us far from satisfied with the present system. They said that it was a revenue exercise and then admitted that there was no revenue. When it was put to them that there would appear to be other reasons, they were coy about what those other reasons might be. We therefore decided that something ought to be done by the Government and we accordingly made a recommendation.

We said: The present arrangements serve no useful national purpose; and both DOE and the Treasury recognised their absurdity. From the taxpayer's standpoint, the obvious immediate action needed is to suspend the present arrangements temporarily until a policy decision becomes possible. It is not that we oppose control, as I believe that many of us privately believe that dogs need to be kept under control. There is a responsibility attached to keeping dogs. If the Government are not prepared to make up their mind and produce some realistic and self-financing system, they should in the meantime scrap the licence. At the end of our debate, I put a question to the Treasury representative. I told him that there was an expression, "Let sleeping dogs lie" and asked: do I understand that the Treasury believe that £4 million a year is an unacceptable price to pay for that? The reply was: No, the Treasury does not regard the £4 million a year as an acceptable price to pay. If the Treasury does not accept it, why is it not putting pressure on Ministers to do something about it and to introduce a realistic policy that would save money and safeguard owners of dogs and people who suffer as a result of dogs not being kept under control? In this small way, the Committee of Public Accounts has assisted the work of the Select Committee. I hope that, in many wider respects, that assistance and co-operation will continue.

9.6 pm

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

I shall try to be brief as we are having a wide-ranging debate and I am especially interested in dog licences and game licences. I believe that the Minister will appreciate a brief reference to the Nature Conservancy Council and the need to accord a much higher priority to it than the proposed expenditure of £15.5 million, which is not enough to serve the essential purposes of British conservation. As we are to debate a private Member's Bill of enormous relevance on Friday, I trust that if the Minister cannot find the money he can at least guarantee the Government's good will.

The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, uttered a call for boldness. I suggest that the Minister applies that boldness to the game licence. I am astonished that no Conservative Member, apart from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), referred to this matter. However, if the Minister obtained the figures from the Box he would ascertain that extravagance on the game licence greatly exceeds that on dogs.

The licence is a feudal residue. It was introduced in 1831 as a means of changing the arrangements to prevent the masses from taking wild animals and game. Before that date, people could not take game unless they owned a certain amount of property. They had to be 40-shilling freeholders in the 14th century and £150 long leaseholders in the 17th century. However, in 1831, with the prospect of greater prosperity and more people qualifying, it was decided to scrap the property qualification and to introduce a licence or, as it was originally called, a certificate, the fee for which was pitched well above the purchasing power of most people.

The system of game licensing has virtually fallen into disuse. Many people probably do not know that it exists and many others conveniently forget about it. Given the enormous change in recent years in the Conservative party, I doubt whether many Conservative Members have ever even thought about it. Indeed, that reference to change is very relevant, because earlier this week a Conservative Member referred to grouse as a migratory species. It is astonishing that Conservative Members do not understand the wildlife that they have for generations slaughtered. These days people have to come to Opposition Members for information on wildlife. Only my hon. Friends seem to be aware of the appalling brick that was dropped on that occasion.

The approach to game, shooting and field sports needs to be changed and should concentrate on conservation and competence instead of an individual's capacity to pay. I could go on at great length on that point, and I trust that the Minister would allow me to do so, since his hon. Friends failed to refer to the game licence. However, as hon. Members have said, that licence is perhaps even more absurd than the dog licence. The Minister will have to consider the advice that he has been given on dog licences, because the situation is plainly absurd. In doing so, I hope that he will recognise the valuable point made by a Mr. Read in a debate in the House in 1867. I believe that the fee was then fixed at five shillings. He urged that dog licences should be taken out before the dog is six months old.

I make that point, because I believe that the greatest problem is impulse buying. I used to breed show dogs, and that is probably why I am speaking now. A long time ago, before I became completely involved in politics, I was much involved in dog fancying. Many dog fanciers recognise that too many people obtain puppies on a whim, and that it is they who tend to cause the trouble.

Responsible dog owners—and that usually includes all those involved in breeding and showing, who are unlikely to let their valuable animals run about and cause a nuisance—should not have to pay a very large fee for every dog that they own or hold. Those who do not cause a problem should not have to foot the bill for the problems that irresponsibility causes. The Minister should be wary of accepting the advice of some of his hon. Friends, who seemed to be so anxious to follow every prevailing fashion as to deter people from owning dogs.

Many of us accept that the present fee is absurd and that changes in the regulations are necessary; but we must not create a situation in which poor people or lonely elderly people are denied the companionship and affection of a dog. We must try to ensure that we encourage responsibility rather that deter dog ownership. I trust that the Minister will bear that in mind. Clearly we need to ensure that those responsible for the problems are not given any encouragement.

People may have been evading the licence fee for years. There was considerable concern about dog licence evasion in the early part of the 19th century following Pitt's introduction of the licence in the late 18th century. However, we would not want to raise the licence fee to the real level found in William Pitt's or Gladstone's day and then find that people are prevented from owning dogs as a result.

I think that I have addressed the House for long enough, but I trust that the Minister will accept the advice that he has been given. I hope that he is bold, but he also needs to be intelligent.

9.14 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I rise to ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that Class VIII Vote 1 does not include one penny for the fluoridation of the public water supply. I fear that the words telling us that the Vote covers grants to public bodies towards capital expenditure on water services or grants to local authorities for a number of local environmental services may cover just the evil that I have to spend so much of my time trying to fight. Surely in a free society the compulsory mass medication of the water supply, forcing people who do not want it, who do not need it, who cannot possibly benefit by it and who are opposed to it, to drink water polluted by this industrial effluent, is an evil.

What on earth are a Conservative Government, committed to the freedom of the individual and the freedom of choice, doing permitting—nay, encouraging —the mass medication of our drinking water? Even if it were proven beyond any doubt that fluoridation is completely safe, which it never has been or ever could be in the face of massive evidence that it triggers cancer and other physical afflictions, it would still be an affront to a free society to force it on people. Even if it were proven beyond any doubt that it was wholly beneficial for teeth, which it has never been and never could be in the face of evidence that it causes mottling and discoloration at quite low doses, it is still a cause for shame that those who have no wish to be mass medicated have to be subjected to it. Those who want fluoridation could easily buy fluoridated toothpaste in the shops.

This is not the time to go into the manifest reasons why fluoridation is undesirable and unacceptable, but my hon. Friend ought to be reminded of three points about fluoridation. First, it is unlawful. It has been found to be so by the Court of Session in Scotland. The water authorities in England and Wales fluoridate only because the Government indemnify them against successful legal action. There is a move afoot to change the law and that move could bring the Government into discredit with a large number of people who support them throughout the country.

Secondly, fluoridation is undemocratic and intensely contrary to people's wishes. Unelected water authorities and unelected regional health authorities substitute, with flagrant contempt for the wishes of ordinary people, their views about what is best for them in place of the views of elected authorities. All over the country, district, county and parish councils have overwhelmingly voted against fluoridation, yet the water authorities have gone on doing it. Only this week I have received letters of support from the metropolitan borough of Calderdale and the Taunton Deane borough council, both of which are organisations to which the people are democratically elected, and they resent the fact that the Government have given to unelected authorities the right to decide whether there shall be fluoridated water.

The Government must take on board their responsibility in this matter. They cannot just shrug off that responsibility with the explanation that they are making fluoridation available and that it is up to local authorities to decide. What are the local authorities? Local authorities to everyone are the democratically elected local authorities, not the water authorities and not the regional health authorities, which are not democratically elected and which flout the views of the democratically elected authorities.

There are already 93 signatories to early-day motion 20 opposed to fluoridation and even as I speak I am hopeful that there may be 94. My hon. Friend must know also that a large number of Ministers are privately opposed to it. I warn him that any attempt to introduce a Bill to make fluoridation lawful will not slip through the House without obstruction in the middle of the night. It will be opposed. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will seek to divide the House at whatever hour the vote is called.

Thirdly, I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that hitherto what has moved Governments to support fluoridation is the belief that the respectable responsible medical authorities in Britain are wholeheartedly behind it. That is no longer so. Day by day, fluoridation is being opposed by responsible medical bodies throughout the world and by responsible medical practitioners. The message is getting across that it is unethical to prescribe medicines for people one does not know and about whose needs one has no idea.

The message is getting across that in the fluoridated United States there are not fewer dentists but more. The argument that as there has been a reduction in the dental decay of children's teeth in places such as Birmingham since fluoridation, that must have been caused by fluoridation is false, unscientific and contrary to much of the evidence. If it were true, it would be difficult to explain why similar reductions in dental caries are taking place in areas such as the Isle of Wight, which is not fluoridated, and in fluoride-free Bristol, where 62 per cent. Of five-year-olds had no tooth decay in 1983, while fewer than 58 per cent. of children in Gwynedd, which is fluoridated, were free from dental decay.

The message is getting across that to talk of an optimum level of 1 part per million as being safe in drinking water is to ignore the fact that there is fluoride in the air we breathe, in the processed food we eat and in the tea we drink. The cumulative increase of fluoride over the years is probably having strong adverse effects on people, particularly the elderly. In addition, we still do not know what causes rheumatism and other illnesses.

One leading medical authority who has changed his mind about fluoridation is Mr. John Colquhoun, who was, until his recent retirement, the principal dental officer of Auckland in New Zealand. He worked in the health department for 35 years and is the president of the New Zealand Society of Dentistry for Children. In 1980, he was chosen to carry out a worldwide research study on fluoridation and he produced a paper saying that there is evidence that there is no dental benefit related to water fluoridation, but there is evidence of chronic fluoride intoxication.

That is consistent with the findings of two or three law courts in America, of the commission in Quebec and of a number of medical authorities throughout the world. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to convey to the Government the fact that the sway that the medical profession once held over the House and the Government to force fluoridation down our throats is no longer adequate. That control must slip away. The rights of individual citizens, claiming their freedom in a free society to make their own choices, must be paramount. I want an assurance that not one penny of this Vote will be used for the fluoridation of the public water supply.

9.23 pm

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

It is said that patience is a virtue and, having now been called to speak, I am delighted to recognise that that statement still holds good. I shall not follow the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), except to say that, as one of the signatories of his early-day motion, I agree with everything that he said.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made a valid point when he said that we are in a mess over dog licences. The pressure being put on the Government by this debate and by the reports from the Select Committee on the Environment and the Committee of Public Accounts show that the House speaks with one voice in saying that we are in a ridiculous situation and that the Department of the Environment can no longer ignore the problem.

Like the hon. Member for Wentworth, I have to declare an interest. I own two Cavalier King Charles spaniels.. I was delighted that the debate did not start till after 7 o'clock, because I normally rely on the business of the House allowing me to exercise and feed my dogs between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock.

When I saw that the debate was taking place today, I wondered when my dog licences had expired. I regret to have to admit that I have broken the law. It was only after seeing that this debate was to take place that I went to the post office in the Central Lobby and paid my 75p—two dogs require two 37½p licences.

Although I had been breaking the law—in common with many millions of fellow dog owners—I realised as I walked into the Post Office that I was doing the Treasury a disservice, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said about dog owners saving the Treasury money by not having licences. It is ridiculous that the 37½p for a dog licence does not pay for processing the licence. We must resolve the present muddle in a way that does not penalise dog owners. Dogs provide companionship and friendship for many people.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that feeding a dog these days is an expensive business. It costs me about £4.50 a week to feed my two King Charles spaniels. That is about £200 a year. If I add £30 to £40 for veterinary fees and innoculations, being obliged to pay an additional £5 for a licence would not be unreasonable.

Because time is pressing, I shall not raise other matters to which I would have referred. I hope that the Minister accepts that dog lovers throughout the country expect action, as do those who have cause to worry about stray dogs.

9.27 pm

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

I shall not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Briggs and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) because I must not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I know of his interest in spaniels at first hand because we appeared on Yorkshire Television together, and he was seen walking up the path with a spaniel under his arm.

I shall concentrate on the places where dogs are normally kept — in the home. We have had some important recent legislation affecting the home, including the Housing Defects Bill, and I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary in his place, because he has been concerned with that measure. There were some interesting exchanges in Committee on that Bill, but today I wish to concentrate on the cost to local authorities arising out of the buying and rejuvenation of defective property.

I fear that the Government have not taken fully into account the vast financial effect that these activities will have on local authorities. If authorities are to be obliged to purchase defective houses and pay for their rejuvenation, they should receive 100 per cent. grant for that expenditure.

In my constituency, which is a mining area, another problem will arise. Not only will the local authority have to buy back defective houses which were sold to people in the past, and perhaps pay for the rejuvenation of that property. There are a number of houses that used to belong to the National Coal Board and which were bought by former NCB tenants. Under the latest proposals, the authority, not having benefited from the capital receipts of that property, will nevertheless have to buy it back.

Local authorities, especially those in my area, will move into financial difficulties. Many of them are already facing those difficulties because of the Government's policies. If the Housing Defects Bill is enacted in its present form, I hope that the Government will closely monitor its effect. I hope, too, that they will tell us of that effect. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local government organisations have warned the Government of the possible financial effects of the Bill. If they find that the local government organisations are right and if they come to that realisation before the Bill is enacted, I hope that they will introduce amendments to ensure that local authorities are compensated in full for the consequences of it. It is essential that we look after local authorities, and as it stands the Bill will place an additional burden upon them. I hope that the Government will take that factor into consideration.

9.30 pm

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

This has been a mixed debate. Some hon. Members have addressed themselves to the uncaring attitude of some towards dogs and the welfare of animals generally. I shall return to the theme that was adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) by taking up his remarks about the Government's uncaring attitude towards and neglect of human beings and placing them in the context of the housing Estimates.

It is the Opposition's view that the moneys provided in the Estimates for housing purposes, whether for housing associations—a cut has been announced in the money to be made available to the Housing Corporation — for local authorities for their own building and renovation programmes or for owner-occupiers for repairs or the provision of new amenities, are grossly inadequate for the current year. There has been a cut of 60 per cent. in the moneys provided for housing benefit since the Government took office. The money that will be spent next year by the Government on housing subsidies and capital expenditure will be only 35 per cent. in real terms of housing expenditure for 1979–80. Those figures—I realise that sometimes figures are not absorbed —demonstrate a massive and growing housing crisis. That is why the Opposition are discontented with the moneys that the Government are providing this year.

There remains great suspicion that during the current financial year the Government will impose a moratorium on local government capital expenditure on housing. There are a number of reasons for that suspicion. First, local authorities were urged last year not to underspend. That being so, they may have slightly exceeded last year's spending limits. That overspending could be carried forward into the current year. Secondly, there remains the massive pressure that was built up by the 90 per cent. repair and improvement grants. There are probably several hundred thousand applications in the pipeline. The pressure created by the payment of grants could lead to overspending in some local government areas, which in turn could lead to a moratorium and cuts.

Thirdly, the imposition of VAT on house alterations could increase even further the commitments of local authorities which have agreed to give housing improvement grants. That in turn could put further pressure on the Government to introduce a moratorium.

Lastly, it appears that the Government may have underestimated the amount of money coming in from capital receipts from the sale of council houses. A large part of the £700 million for the housing investment programme for the current year is financed by the sale of council houses. The Government were banking pretty heavily on local authority tenants getting mortgages from building societies, and every time a local authority tenant chooses to get a mortgage from his local authority instead of going to a building society, there is a cut in the housing investment programme. That could intensify the pressure for a moratorium to be announced during the year.

The moneys are inadequate because of the risks to which ordinary members of the public are exposed, including the further atrophying of the building industry which could take place if the Government announced a moratorium. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) that the building industry is especially damaged by any Government's stop-start policies.

Mr. Heddle

In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about local authorities having granted mortgages for the sale of council houses, will he use this opportunity to appeal to local authorities to refinance their mortgage book by encouraging people who have mortgages with them to refinance through building societies at significantly lower rates of interest and thus release the money that has been locked in mortgages for more beneficial purposes?

Mr. Fraser

I am in favour of anything that brings more money into new housing investment. I am sure that many local authorities would be only too happy to follow that course of action. However, one can understand the problem by examining the statistics of people buying council houses. The average age of people buying council houses is much higher than that of people buying private homes for owner-occupation. The average age is as high as 55, which means that building societies do not regard such people as being such a good risk as they would the average owner-occupier of 29 when they first buy. That is why the Government have got these things wrong.

I have an illustration of why the money provided for housing is inadequate. It arose out of a television programme about housing problems in London which was shown last night. It also illustrates how wasteful in the long term is the failure to invest in housing. In London there are 2,178 families in bed-and-breakfast hotel accommodation. That is costing the public — either London ratepayers or London taxpayers, or both—about £10 million a year. Money is being lost because local authorities are accommodating three times more families than three years ago in such accommodation. There is also the problem of the long-term damage being done to the health of these people and their children, which is almost immeasurable.

It is a scandal that the amount of money being provided for housing is such that over 2,000 families are living in accommodation that is described as "unfit for human habitation" and "prejudicial to health" and which involves people living in hotels with inadequate fire precautions. One of the people in the programme last night said that living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a homeless person was worse than a prison sentence". At least prisoners know how long their sentence is, but many homeless people have no idea when they will get a decent home.

This problem is exacerbated by the way in which some Conservative local authorities in London are misusing the national mobility scheme by pushing their homeless families into another part of London. It is interesting that many Conservative authorities have no people, or few people, living in hotel accommodation, because they are not allocating within their own authorities. They are simply pushing the homeless into areas such as Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark, which already have terrible housing problems.

Whichever test one applies to housing problems, the investment is inadequate. In the private sector. one third of a million houses lack amenities, and 500,000 have high repair costs of over £7,000. There must be more investment in that sector, or it will begin to fall apart. I suspect that much of it is beginning to fall apart already, as the pressure from the reduction in the provision of council accommodation to let continues because of inadequate housing investment programmes. More and more people on low incomes with inadequate resources to undertake owner-occupation are none the less being forced into the owner-occupied sector or are being forced to remain there because that part of the stock of privately owned housing will go the same way as the stock of privately rented accommodation which has been neglected because of too little investment.

By that test, far too little money is being invested. At the same time, local authority construction figures are continuing to fall, quarter after quarter, as the recent press releases from the Department of the Environment show. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke of the housing association sector, and again expenditure on that is falling. Indeed, the most recent Department of the Environment press release shows a further substantial cut. In 1983–84 the net funds for investment for the housing association movement were £608 million. They fell in 1983–84, and they have fallen again this year to £617 million, which is a very substantial drop. But even within that reduced total of expenditure for housing associations, as the press release shows, the obsession with the right to buy, as opposed to the provision of money for housing accommodation to let, involves a further cut of £6 million in the housing investment programme for housing associations during the current year.

As was said at the beginning of the debate, we censure the Government for the amount of money provided in the housing Estimates. We are staggering to a terrible housing crisis. The position gets worse year after year. In the long term, it will be a crisis not only for the homeless, for those on housing waiting lists, and for those who live in inadequate, damp and poorly repaired accommodation; it will be a crisis for the whole of society, and one that we shall regret. We make no apology for returning to the subject at every possible opportunity.

9.41 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)

I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that it is a very good thing that we are having this debate at all, and that the House should be asserting its right to look at Supply in a proper way.

I shall of course attempt to respond to the general points that have been made on housing, and will report all the others to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has been here throughout much of the debate. But most of my remarks will be addressed to the report of the Select Committee, because we are developing a system whereby Estimates are examined by Select Committees in considerable detail, after which we have a debate on the Floor of the House. It is an admirable system and it would be a pity to waste the opportunity to deal with the matter in that way.

I can say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that I shall make no reference to fluoridation. However, I listened to his speech with close attention, and I have no doubt that it will be deployed on other occasions.

I start with the vexed question of dog licensing, dealt with under Class VIII, Vote 5. There were a large number of speakers— led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) all took part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has been a major campaigner on the issue, as indeed has the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Perhaps the father of all campaigners on the issue has been my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. I understand that he is responsible for the new regime that now exists in Northern Ireland.

I entirely share the Select Committee's concern about the continuing and increasing cost to the Exchequer of dog licensing. I congratulate the Committee on bringing the matter to the attention of the House. As the report points out, the Committee of Public Accounts—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is a member — reported on the matter in the last Parliament, and the House is right to expect the Government to bring forward proposals. The fact that none has yet been advanced does not mean that the Government have not been seized of the importance of the matter. The unfortunate officials of my Department have had to be concerned with it. I imagine that there can for them be no more difficult task than having to stonewall while the Minister has not yet made up his mind, and to do so with courtesy under intense cross-examination. The officials did their job very well. It was not their fault that at that point Ministers had not come to conclusions.

I have an opportunity now to mention to the House some of the conclusions that we have reached. The report of the Committee of Public Accounts, and the report now before us, focus on the financial absurdity that the costs of issuing licences are now substantially greater than the revenue they produce. But the Government are faced with the fact that correction of that absurdity cannot be separated from a decision on policy towards dog control in general.

The Government recognise, as do many hon. Members —in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—that very great benefit derives from responsible dog ownership. Several hon. Members made that point. We must recognise the growing concern in the past decade or more about the genuinely serious problems caused by dogs that are not properly controlled and cared for. In 1974, the Labour Government set up a working party on dogs, which reported in 1976, recommending an increased licence fee to finance dog warden schemes. Successive Governments—it may have been the Chief Whips of successive Governments who do not always welcome this subject with the same enthusiasm as those of us who are concerned with this subject in other ways—did not manage to find the time to tackle these issues.

The present Government are clear that something must now be done to change the present arrangements. The difficulty has been to decide between the competing solutions. As the House will perhaps realise, although there has been unanimity about a good deal of the debate, I suspect that it will be shortlived when our proposals come forward, because this is a matter about which people feel strongly and in contradictory directions. There is a severe dog war raging in my constituency about whether to allow dogs into a particular garden.

The Committee of Public Accounts recognised the complexity of the issues. It recommended that the present arrangements should be temporarily suspended until a substantive policy decision was possible. The Government replied that there was no provision for suspending licensing. Suspension would imply abolition and would require primary legislation. That would amount to a substantive policy decision rather than an interim measure.

Sir Hugh Rossi

It is intended some time this year to remove the halfpenny by regulation, but at the same time it is possible to reduce the fee to nil pence.

Mr. Waldegrave

I shall come to that point. Some people see the dog licence as an anachromism. Its original purpose was to raise revenue. It now raises negative revenue, which in some ways is a good principle for a tax but is not sensible in raising revenue. Other people feel equally strongly that abolition would signal a lessening of concern about the control and welfare of dogs. I am sure that that is wrong, but there is increasing worry about that aspect.

Another option—perhaps the simplest—is to increase revenue by simply increasing the licence fee. That would not require primary legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has pointed out, we have the powers to vary the licence fee. We could increase it or we could decrease it to zero. Dog licensing can no longer be seen merely as a means of raising general revenue. The question of revenue is important, but consideration must be given to the need for dog control measures. The Government are not persuaded, therefore, that a uniform national approach to licensing is appropriate.

The aim should be to take account of differing local circumstances while preserving the benefits of licensing. The Government believe that the best way forward lies in new legislation to replace the present national licensing system with a provision for local authorities to introduce their own licensing and registration arrangements, which they can tailor to local needs, the revenue raised being devoted to appropriate dog welfare and control activities.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

I apologise to the House for not having been present for the earlier part of the debate. I am most disturbed at what my hon. Friend said. I warn him that, if any such powers were brought into effect, the anti-dog local authorities throughout the country would be given draconian powers. We have seen the draconian powers that have been granted through Northern Ireland regulations. My hon. Friend will face massive opposition. The best thing to do would be to increase fines to a level that would really penalise irresponsible dog owners and not give local authorities the chance to crucify dogs if they do not like them.

Mr. Waldegrave

If my hon. Friend had heard the earlier speeches, he would have heard good arguments set out against that case. He has demonstrated the reasons why Governments have not come forward with proposals. It is not easy to achieve unanimity. No action on this matter will achieve unanimity. The Government therefore intend shortly to issue a consultation paper setting out the options and making detailed proposals for change on the basis I have described—a Green Paper with white edges. The issues are contentious, as has just been demonstrated. We are anxious that future arrangements should command as broad a measure of support as possible.

Sir Hugh Rossi

My hon. Friend refers to a further consultation paper. We had a working group paper in 1976 after a delay of two years. It is now 10 years since the whole operation began. Will he give an assurance that the consultation period will be short, because if next year's Estimates contain a similar provision for the Post Office he may find it more difficult to persuade the House to accept it?

Mr. Waldegrave

I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I cannot guarantee that the legislation will be through by this time next year, but I guarantee that we shall have initiated action by then. We are anxious to bring the whole unhappy saga of the dog licence to a rational conclusion. I am sure that the House will be pleased that the Government have grasped the nettle and decided to do something about it and that we have resolved to settle an issue on which successive Administrations have felt unable to take action.

I wish to deal briefly with two specific points mentioned in the report. First, the Government are considering what action may be needed to deal with the consequences of the demonetisation of the halfpenny, a decision that could not sensibly be taken until the wider question of what to do about the licensing arrangements had been settled. Secondly, the report mentions the arrangements in Northern Ireland where a £5 licence fee was introduced in 1983. We certainly wish to learn from that experience, although it may be too soon to learn very much.

I well understand why the Select Committee wished to bring to the attention of the House the continuing cost to the Exchequer of the present dog licence arrangements. I also understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green put down his motion, but I hope that in the light of what I have said he will not wish to press it.

Mr. Marlow

Is my hon. Friend promising legislation?

Mr. Waldegrave

I have made it clear that we are proceeding by means of a consultation paper with the intention of introducing legislation based on the local option scheme that I have described.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to game licences. I believe that there is a far better case for this licence, which is linked with the licence to deal in game and has a conservation aspect in attempting to control the taking of game and to prevent poaching. It is impossible to say exactly what it costs at present as the costs are linked with those of the dog licence, but revenue is about £200,000.

On housing subsidy, the Select Committee was rightly concerned that local authorities had over-claimed in 1982–83. The criticisms made by the Select Committee have led to a further tightening of the system, which had already been improved by the Department, and this has reduced the overspend. As the overspend is clawed back in subsequent years this is a matter of administration rather than of any waste of cash in the end.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a number of sensible points about housing association grant. He referred to costs relating to site disposals. The report deals with those which followed cuts in the programme in 1976, but it is well accepted that in circumstances of that kind costs must be properly covered. I do not have time to respond fully to all the hon. Gentleman's points, but they were well taken and I will ensure that they are pursued.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other hon. Members on both sides attacked the Government's record on housing, but their solution is not that favoured by the Government. Some of the worst housing conditions to be seen, certainly in my constituency, derive from the ill-considered boom in council house building in the 1960s. One of the tragedies that we face is the rapid deterioration of those properties. I understand and respect the point made by the hon. Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) that money should go where it is most needed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was present for that part of the debate and reminded me that he was carrying out a review of the improvement grant system to ensure that the priorities were designed to put the money where it would do most good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire firmly reminded us, if there is any party political knockabout on this, our record in expansion and maintenance of that programme compared with that of the Labour Government is one of which my party can be proud.

I have not been able to respond in detail to the whole range of general points on housing on this occasion, but there is nothing in the Government's record of which we need to be ashamed.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred to defective housing and its relationship to HIP allocations. The cost derived from defective housing will need to be taken into account in HIP allocations.

The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Wentworth mentioned the Nature Conservancy Council and its resources. The mounting claims on the NCC must be of concern to the Government, but we stand by the intention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to provide the resources for the working of that Act.

I do not think that hon. Members referred to the local environmental services underspending, in Class VII, Vote 1. I am able to give an assurance, in commenting on the Select Committee report, that the Vote will be closely monitored so that early consideration can be given to the possibility of corrective action. That has already been welcomed in the Select Committee's report.

With regard to the British Board of Agrément, I agree that we cannot go on indefinitely in this way. We have been trying to make it pay for almost 20 years. We shall make a final serious attempt to do so but if within the next two years we do not achieve a solution, it would be right to come back and have another look at the future of that organisation.

With regard to voluntary bodies, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend, corning as he did from the Department of Health and Social Security, has been very interested in the programme and has taken a grip on voluntary grants in the Department of the Environment. He has organised matters on a much more rational basis and has channelled support to national umbrella organisations rather than to the rag-bag of bits and pieces that was on the list before. Although it is difficult to find a definition that allows sufficient flexibility to meet the wide-ranging demands upon my Department, we shall search for a definition that will allow us to provide proper legislative cover. I hope that that will encourage hon. Members to believe that we take criticisms seriously in the Department.

Hon. Members have made entirely justifiable remarks about the level of financial support to the Zoological Society of London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 21 December that the Government had agreed to provide further financial support to the Society for up to three years. We are also considering the possibility of making grants available for capital projects. We are now reviewing with the society its plans for the future. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review. If longer-term financial support were needed, I fully support the Committee's recommendation that the matter should be placed on a proper statutory footing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, referred to the Vote on the Royal Commission on Historic Buildings and Monuments for England expenditure on the royal palaces, and the unsatisfactory information that was provided. He was generous in saying that mistakes are made occasionally when huge sums are being dealt with. The position is much better than it appeared at the time. I am sorry that new information reached the Select Committee too late for its report.

The job given to the new commission and to the Board of Trustees of the Tower Armouries is most important. The Committee rightly expressed concern. I hope that we can allay any fears about the control of spending. These new bodies cover important areas and we shall monitor their expenditure closely. We are grateful for the help of the Select Committee in highlighting an unsatisfactory position which may not have come to light so quickly without its help.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for what he said about the co-operation that he received from the Department. My Department is undertaking a wide range of improvements based partly on the well known MINIS system and partly on the financial management initiative to tighten and sharpen control of expenditure. The way in which the relationship between the officials and the Select Committee has developed has shown that that partnership can have great benefits to us and to the House. It shows how Select Committees can be used in the right way to the benefit of the taxpayer and hon. Members.

I am grateful for the debate that we have had today, and recommend the motion to the House.

Sir Hugh Rossi

By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendment and divide the House. However, I add the caveat that I hope that similar items will not appear in the following year's Estimates.

It being Ten o'clock, the Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates, 1984–85, Class IX, Vote 8 and Class VIII, Vote 5.