§ 2.20 p.m.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any action has been taken in regard to certain proposals relating to the welfare, control and licensing of dogs—which formed the subject of a Motion in this House on November 25, 1959, which was accepted by Her Majesty's Government of that day; and in particular what action has been taken, or is contemplated, to deal with the very considerable incidence of evasion of tax and with the penalties accruing from such evasion.]
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 increased the protection given to dogs under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 by making it an offence to abandon an animal in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 made easier the procedure under which local authorities can designate roads on which dogs are not allowed, except on leads, by making 358 it unnecessary for orders to be confirmed by the Minister of Transport. To change the level of the licence fee, or the penalty for its evasion, requires legislation for which there has been no suitable opportunity; but the Government's current review of local authority finance includes examination of all licences and registrations for which local authorities are responsible and from which they retain the revenue, including the dog licence.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply and for his courtesy generally in this matter. I am bound to say that it does not seem to get us very much further. It is six years ago since a Question was asked in this House about the increase of penalties for evasion of the tax, and we were assured by the then Minister that this matter was being examined closely by the Criminal Department of the Home Office. Nothing appears to have been done in that period.
Is the noble Lord aware that it is estimated to-day that there are between 4 million and 5 million dogs in this country? I would stress the fact that this is only an estimate; it is almost impossible to get the exact number. On the other hand, the official figure according to the number of licences issued is only 2¾million. Is the noble Lord further aware of the mass of stray and unwanted dogs dealt with by the police, by the R.S.P.C.A. and by other bodies, the vast majority of which have to be destroyed, the slaughter reaching the appalling figure of over 200,000 dogs a year, or 4,000 dogs each week? Would the noble Lord not agree that, in order to discourage the thoughtless and irresponsible buying of dogs and puppies, legislation is urgently required, making it an offence for a dog to be sold unless a licence is produced at the time by the prospective buyer; and, further, that the cost of the licence, which has remained at 7s. 6d. ever since the year 1878, should be increased to at least £1, preferably £2, or even £3?
Finally, is the noble Lord aware of what I said in the beginning, that in 1959 an assurance was given (it appears in column 968 of Vol. 219 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that the need for an increase in the penalty for keeping a dog without a licence was being reviewed by the 359 Criminal Department of the Home Office? Can he say whether any action has resulted?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, I will do my best. The debate to which the noble Lord was referring took place in November or December, 1959. Since then there have been five years of Conservative Government, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was for part of that time in the Government, and he was the noble Earl who gave that promise to his noble friend. There are a great many stray dogs, and, although the figures are only approximate, the R.S.P.C.A. say that they handle approximately 75,000 stray dogs which have been reported by the police, and another 100,000 unwanted dogs. That makes a total of 175,000. In addition there are 25,000 other stray dogs dealt with by the police, and 50,000 other unwanted dogs. These figures together give a total of a quarter of a million dogs.
The noble Lord is perfectly right; such dogs are destroyed at the rate of 200,000 a year, or 4,000 dogs each week; and it is a serious matter. In the debate which he initiated in 1959, the noble Lord gave figures which were very much lower than those, so it shows that he is on to something which is serious and of which Parliament should take notice.
With regard to the noble Lord's question about making it obligatory for a person buying a dog to have a licence, of course when it is over the age of six months a licence is required for it. If the noble Lord comes to me and I sell him a dog, if he has not a licence for it when I hand the dog over to him, he is committing an offence. So the law is quite watertight in that respect at the present time. When the licence fee was fixed it was done purely as a means of getting taxation: there was no idea of making people look after their dogs better. The matter is under consideration by this Government review of local government finance and other matters. I think that is about enough.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, may I ask whether the Government have made any progress since last December in regard to granting a period of grace for the renewal of dog licences? Every dog licence expires at midnight on the last day of the month. One cannot renew 360 it in advance, and if one cannot find a post office which is open at midnight one is breaking the law.
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, I was here when this matter was raised before Christmas, and I was not quite certain whether the Home Office was right. But I can advise the noble Lord now that if he cares to go to the post office a month before his licence expires he will be able to obtain a licence and will save 7½d.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that in that way one loses a month every year, and that in twelve years one would have to take out thirteen licences?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, I realise that, but it would save the noble Lord from being a criminal.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, may I ask a question arising out of this discussion? We have been fortunate in our country in keeping rabies at a distance, and it occurs to me that, while there may be no immediate danger, with all these masterless dogs it could present a potential danger. Are Her Majesty's Government keeping an eye on the matter from that angle?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, the Government enforce as strictly as ever the question of the quarantine period before a dog is allowed to run free when coming to this country from abroad.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHMy Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have given any consideration to the introduction into this country of the form of dog licensing in use in Canada? In that country the dog licence consists of a metal tae to be worn attached to the dog's collar, and differing in shape every year. Would not the introduction of that system enable a policeman to see at a glance whether or not a dog is licensed, and would this not be an improvement on our present system?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, perhaps the noble Earl has overlooked the fact that dog licences may be taken out in any month of the year. Therefore, the dog would be wearing the same tag, and it would be impossible for a policeman in January, 1966, to see whether or not 361 that dog was wearing a current licence. I think the noble Earl would agree that it might be rather dangerous for the policeman, or the warden, examining the dog to see whether or not the tag was up to date.
The system would also entail, as the noble Earl no doubt realises, a good deal more administrative cost. It would probably be necessary to have the name and address of the owner on the tag. Of course, if it was a dog that was straying, and there was no tag, the owner could not be traced in any case. In addition, the shape or colour of the tag would have to be changed every year so that it could not be easily copied or forged. In these circumstances, I think that the noble Earl, on giving the matter further consideration, will bear in mind the principal difficulty, that in this country dog licences are renewable in any month of the year.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that if he chose to buy a dog licence the month before he was required to do so he would be saved 7½d., but, more importantly, he would save himself from becoming a criminal. Can the noble Lord tell us why it is necessary for Lord Airedale and other members of the public to be put to such inconvenience to prevent themselves becoming criminals?
§ LORD BOWLESI do not think spending 7½d. in the month before the renewal of the licence is putting him to any considerable inconvenience.
§ LORD NEWTONThe noble Lord does not follow the point. The inconvenience arises in having to think, a month before the licence expires, that unless you do buy the new one a month before, you may be committing a criminal offence.
§ LORD BOWLESI do not think it is very difficult to think about it a month before.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)My Lords, I think dogs have had a good innings and we might move on to another lamp-post, or something like that.