Registration of Dogs (Hansard, 5 May 1998)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a scheme for the compulsory registration of dogs; and for connected purposes. It is now a decade since the registration of dogs was finally abandoned. The scheme that was dropped had been introduced some 200 years ago as a tax for the Navy when we were at war in various conflicts with our current European partners—from the comments that we heard today, I take it that some hon. Members still hark back to those glorious Napoleonic days. The scheme that was abolished had largely fallen into disrepute and had become a bureaucratic burden with little idea of its purpose.

My Bill would not reintroduce a scheme of that nature, but significant advances have been made that would make a new scheme both sensible and timely. In particular, I shall argue for a scheme that combines registration and identification functions, as I believe that only by fulfilling both purposes can the measure be effective.

In introducing the Bill, my arguments will fall into three groups. First, I shall set out the benefits that I believe the measure would bring—in proposing legislation, one must always keep a clear idea of its goals. Secondly, I shall describe the schemes that could usefully form part of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Thirdly, I shall try to allay some of the concerns of those who are not yet convinced of the need for registration.

Arguments for registration fall into three classes: first, that it would benefit the animals; secondly, that it would benefit their owners; and thirdly, that it would benefit the wider public. According to a wide range of opinion, the establishment of a clear legal link between each dog and its owner would add greatly to animal welfare, by encouraging responsibility among owners.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently reported an increase in animal cruelty—in 1997, there were 1,092 of cruelty to dogs, an increase of 892 from 1996. One of the greatest causes of frustration is the difficulty in preventing those who have successfully been prosecuted and banned from keeping dogs from so doing. I hope that a comprehensive registration scheme would make it more difficult for a banned owner to keep a dog against the law.

If dogs were registered on a suitable scheme, those involved in accidents could swiftly be traced to their owners and vets. Dog welfare could be promoted by using a database to send owners information on, for example, an alert on diseases in an area or, more generally, on subjects such as neutering.

A further important development would be to eliminate the need for quarantine when animals travel from certain countries. Most people would welcome such a move, which would benefit animals and owners alike. To ensure public confidence in dispensing with our traditional protection against diseases such as rabies, we need far more information about the individual animals that would be exempted from quarantine. A reliable system of animal identification is essential if, as I hope, we are to proceed along those lines.

Registration could also reduce the number of strays that face destruction. That number is estimated to be about 100,000, which represents a terrible indictment on a nation that professes to consist of animal lovers.

585 Principal among the benefits of registration to owners would be anything that helped their pets, such as can be seen in voluntary schemes such as PetLog, which is operated jointly by the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Dogs that are logged on to such a database can be returned to their owners swiftly, minimising the distress that can be caused by a lost pet. Owners may receive added value benefits from information that is held on databases, such as genetic data for breeding or vet bill insurance services.

The advantages to the wider public would be manifest in a number of areas, principally in dealing with the problems of biting, fouling and causing road accidents. Liability needs to be established in all those cases, which can be a major problem under the current unregulated system. It has been estimated that the costs of dealing with problems that result from uncontrolled dogs run into millions of pounds.

The main arguments against registration include cost to the individual, an increase in unnecessary bureaucracy and the fact that irresponsible owners will continue to evade registering. I hope that there will be widespread consultation on costs. To keep registration costs in perspective, they should be set against the total costs of dog ownership. I hope that I shall not put off people from owning pets by referring to RSPCA estimates that total costs are £7,324 for the 12-year life span of a dog—I am certainly making the most of my two cats now that I have seen estimates that they will cost more than £7,000 each during their lifetimes.

Developments in technology mean that the costs may be far lower than expected, and we should be able to avoid problems of unnecessary bureaucracy. Microchipping has proved an effective means of dog identification. A chip the size of a grain of rice is placed beneath the skin and can be scanned on a hand-held device to give an identification code. When I first heard of microchipping, I had visions of people in the dog rescue centre waving dogs across something akin to a supermarket checkout; but cheap hand-held devices are already carried by most dog wardens.

The RSPCA routinely microchips any animals that go through its homes. In an example to the nation, the Blue Peter dog was chipped some years ago, bringing us a long way forward from sticky-back plastic and ordinary household glue solutions. I do not favour making the microchip compulsory and would allow other, appropriate forms of identification, but its widespread use may be a significant factor in keeping costs down as many owners choose it for their own convenience.

For reasons of utility, and with an eye on costs, I would favour a national database, rather than having each local authority set up its own infrastructure. The Kennel Club 586 already operates a database of more than 4 million dogs. Set against the total estimated dog population of about 6.5 million, that demonstrates the feasibility of a national scheme.

With today's technology, computerised schemes can be operated far more cheaply and effectively than 10 years ago. In keeping with the times, it may make sense to require dogs to be registered with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State, rather than setting up an entirely new infrastructure in the public sector. Several possible solutions exist within the framework of a national database with local access points.

Some owners are irresponsible, but the problem of evasion does not lead us to abandon the licensing of shotguns or the registration of cars. We are all irritated at the thought of evasion by some who should be paying their dues, but the additional identification functions will make evasion less likely, and a national database system can be used to identify and follow up problems of under-registration.

I would expect wide consultation on the cost, particularly with a view to exemptions for those groups, such as older people and the disabled, who clearly cannot afford to pay. Perhaps animal welfare organisations that offer cheap or free services—neutering, for example—for the pets of people on low incomes could offer procedures such as microchipping as a low-cost registration option.

Public acceptance of registration is demonstrated in opinion polls that show that as many as 90 per cent. of people, including dog owners, are in favour of such a scheme. The examples abroad are legion. Denmark and Sweden already operate schemes that they believe to be a major success.

When we last had a dog registration scheme, it was based on a structure old enough for the fee to be expressed as a pre-decimal sum: 7s 6d, or 37½p. Through the Bill, we may introduce a new identification and registration scheme before its fee has to be valued in euros, whenever that may be.