DOGS BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1906)

§ EARL CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Bill is entirely uncontroversial, and noble Lords opposite have shown their approval of it in their endeavours during the last ten years in every Session of Parliament to put it on the Statute Book. The Bill provides protection for live stock from injury by dogs. The worse injury was inflicted in Scotland and in Wales, but in 1904 as many as 308 sheep were worried in one English county. One farmer lost 50 lambs in one single night. We have received resolutions from all parts of the country in favour of the Bill. It consolidates and amends the law. It assimilates the law in England, Scotland, and Wales, and makes owners liable for injury done without proving that the dog was mischievous. Under it magistrates can order the destruction of of dogs or order them to be kept under control, under a penalty of 20s., and the Board of Agriculture can make orders requiring collars to be used except in the case of hounds and sporting dogs. There are also provisions to prevent dogs straying.
This Bill is not designed to act against shepherds or crofters or in any way in the interest of game preservers. It is supported by nearly all the farmers clubs and most of the chambers of commerce. I may mention that in one year, in Cheshire, there were 2,230 dogs seized by the police, out of which only 196 were claimed; in Liverpool 3,000 were- seized, and only 111 were claimed. Under this Bill the police can notify to the owner the seizure of a stray dog, if it has an owner, and if it is not claimed within seven days it can be destroyed. There are, of course, exemptions in the Bill, and crofters are protected. No objection has been offered to the Bill from any source, and therefore 55 I confidently hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a"—(Earl Carrington.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Earl on having induced those who think with him and who are in the majority in the other House to give their sanction to this Bill. It is a measure which in substance has been placed before Parliament by his predecessors in office, including myself; and in the year 1904 I thought that a measure, not perhaps quite so ambitious as this one, might have been got through the House of Commons without any controversy, but ' an accident happened to it and it did not pass into law that session. The noble Earl has been able to persuade his friends in the House of Commons to pass legislation from his Department which I regret to say I found it impossible to get passed when I had the honour of being at the head of the Board of Agriculture.
This Bill will be productive of great advantage in all rural districts. It has been said that it is a measure for ringing the curfew on the dogs and that they are to be confined after certain hours on the premises of their masters. But I do not think that is a provision of which anyone can complain. The regulations will be in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, and I think they may safely be entrusted to deal with the matter fairly. With regard to the clause which deals with exemption from licences, I venture to think that there is a very grave scandal indeed in the enormous number of dogs which are kept without licences on grounds wholly insufficient, and I am glad that the noble Earl proposes to minimise that scandal by making the conditions under which exemption can be obtained more stringent than at present.
I should like to know what is the object of Clause 7 which provides that until the first day of January, 1912, the Bill shall not apply to Scotland. I should have thought that it was precisely in the mountainous districts of Scotland and Wales where the great majority of exemptions from licences existed, and: that the provisions of the Act should be enforced there without delay. I have no doubt that when we reach the Committee stage the noble Earl will explain 56 the reasons why Scotland is specially favoured and is to have this five years exemption. There are one or two clauses here which were not in the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons when I had the honour of being President of the Board of Agriculture. One is that a register is to be kept of all dogs received in any home—a provision which is a distinct improvement. The second is that farmers and landowners are to be required to bury carcases of animals that die on their farms to which dogs gain access. I do not quite know whether there are any words which will require the burying of the carcases within a certain time, but I observe in the Bill that it is provided that any person who shall "knowingly and without reasonable excuse" permit the carcase to remain unburied shall be liable, etc. I take it that the intention is that if it is done within reasonable time the penalty will not fall upon the offender. On the whole, I congratulate the noble Earl on having got this Bill through the other House of Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will give it your sanction and that it will pass into law.

THE EARL OF MAYO
My Lords, I am very glad that this Bill has been brought in and that it applies to Ireland. The provision with regard to the wearing of collars is that the Board of Agriculture may make an order requiring this. I think it would be better if it were made absolutely mandatory that all dogs should have collars. If the noble Earl would consider that suggestion I should be very much obliged. Although you suffer in England from stray dogs you have no idea what it is in Ireland. It is something fearful; they go about the country killing sheep in all directions. Poison is laid down wholesale, and I have known of nine or ten dogs belonging to farmers and others being killed by these poisons when taken out for walks by their owners. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will endeavour to make what I will call the collaring order a little stronger.