HL Deb 15 October 1973 vol 345 cc104-18

7.28 p.m.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. There could not have been a better introduction than a deadheat to start off the Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as your Lordships will probably know, is to regulate the commercial breeding of dogs. There are welfare organisations, animal breeders and the public who have expressed great concern about the conditions under which some of the less scrupulous breeders carry on their business. Pet shops and boarding kennels, for example, must be registered and because of this are open to inspection. This, however, leaves a gap in the law regarding breeding establishments, and evidence shows that a minority—but a very substantial minority—of dog breeders have kept bitches and puppies in dreadful conditions. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been very concerned about this, and the position is aggravated by the fact that a considerable number of these cases are to be found in rural areas of the country, where they are very difficult to detect. If further proof of the necessity for this Bill is required, then one has only to recall some of the facts exposed by the B.B.C. in a recent Nationwide programme

The main provisions of the Bill are simple. Any commercial dog breeder who has more than two bitches and who offers puppies for sale must register with the local district council after April 1, 1974. The breeder pays a fee of only £2 to register. The rules, too, are simple. The council must refuse to register anybody who has recorded against him or her under existing legislation a conviction in connection with the treatment of animals, or remove the name of that person from the register on a conviction under this Bill. Once registered, the premises of the breeder are open to inspection by an official of the council or by a veterinary surgeon—and here I make it plain that there is a third category because I know it gives some difficulty to dog breeders—or by a veterinary practitioner acting on the council's behalf. So three classes of person may in fact do this job. That is the simplicity of the Bill, but it is absolutely essential.

If your Lordships wish to know why this Bill should be introduced at this late stage, let me say on behalf of my honourable friend who introduced it in the House of Commons, Mr. Gordon Oakes, the Member for Widnes, that it was introduced only after a great deal of consultation, and indeed after consultation with the Home Office itself; and I should like to add my congratulations to my honourable friend on the assiduity with which he undertook this task. He was asked why this legislation was necessary, and I should like to quote what he said in reply to that question, which was put to him by one of the officials of a newspaper called Dog World. It seems to be a rather well-off paper, because a copy of it costs 15p. He said this: The legislation which I have introduced is not a cure-all: no legislation can ever be. But at least it demands decent and reasonable conditions for dogs in breeding establishments, and allows those concerned with animal welfare to know where to look for abuses. It will force that minority of quick-profit breeders to comply with conditions which responsible breeders have always provided, or to get out of the business altogether". It is because the Bill is simple, because it is necessary, because it is humane and because it meets the desire of a considerable number of people in this country that I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hoy.)

7.34 p.m.

LORD DE CLIFFORD

My Lords, the noble Lord has moved the Second Reading of this Bill in a most eloquent manner. This Bill is not simple. It virtually comes back to what is meant by the words in it. The noble Lord has said that it covers the commercial breeding of dogs, but he has not yet told us what is meant by the commercial breeding of dogs. During the Committee stage in another place the question of the administration of this Bill was raised, and it was said that the R.S.P.C.A. had undertaken a survey and that in that survey they had discovered only 1,156 cases to which this Bill would apply. I think this is quite absurd, because the Bill says, for the purpose of breeding for sale". How do you in fact establish the purpose of breeding for sale? I know there are breeders who breed as fast as possible in the most disgraceful conditions and who do it for sale, but there are thousands of breeders who do no such thing. You have only to pick up a Cruft's catalogue, and in it you will see the names of 3,000 people, I would say, who will be affected by this Bill. They are not breeding commercially; they breed their dogs to improve the breed. They do it as a hobby; they do it because they love their dogs; they do it because they have an intensity of feeling that they should improve breeds. When they breed these dogs they probably breed from a bitch once a year under reasonable conditions, but they breed to improve the breed. If they have eight puppies, they might keep only two and sell six. Are we to say that that is commercial breeding?

This Bill affects every possible form of breeding. There are the breeders of the show dogs and there are the gun-dog breeders, most of whom breed because they want to improve the strain of obedience in their breed. They sell their puppies. Are they to be registered under this Bill? We even come down to foxhound packs. Are beagle packs to be registered under this Bill? Do racing greyhound breeders come under the Bill? While they sell their puppies, are they doing so commercially or merely so that they may get some small return for all the costs which they have to incur? There is no question but that they are breeding for the purpose of breeding for sale; but someone has to decide what the purpose of breeding for sale is, because they are intending, if they are lucky, to sell the surplus puppies. But the intention is to breed good dogs, not to sell the surplus puppies. It would seem to me that one day somebody will have to decide in the courts what exactly is the meaning of the words "the purpose of breeding for sale".

My Lords, the noble Lord also said that this Bill fills a gap. There is another gap which is not even touched on in the Bill and which has not been touched on in the Animal Boarding Establishments Bill. I can think of at least 15 kennels (and within a few minutes I could get the names of them) which do nothing but buy dogs and sell them, and which do this as kennels. They are not boarding establishments, they are not breeding establishments, they are not pet shops. They do something which I think is absolutely dreadful so far as dog breeders are concerned, and that is to sell dogs on hire-purchase. If you cannot afford to keep a dog, you should not have it on hire-purchase. That has nothing to do with this Bill, but such kennels are not covered by the Bill.

I should like to try to get over to noble Lords that I am not opposing the principle of the Bill, but I think that its contents may do a lot of harm and damage to people who do not deserve it. To produce good dogs of good breeds is a most expensive business. The other day a gentleman, in the opposing paper to the one from which the noble Lord has quoted, Our Dogs, set out in some considerable detail the expenses he had incurred in showing one dog for one year—not to keep it for a year, but just to show it. He went to 19 champion shows and 9 open shows, and that cost him £730. That does not include keeping the dog for a period. His sole return in cash was £43. If he is breeding and showing for the purpose of increasing the breed, is there any reason why he should not sell his puppies without having to be registered as a breeding establishment? Further, my Lords, for many years the income tax authorities have agreed that money obtained from the sale of puppies by people who show can be classified as a hobby and is not liable. If now we come to the position where they are registered as breeding establishments, they lose that concession completely. Where do they stand?

If one looks further into the Bill, Clause 1(4) lays down various conditions which, if I am not mistaken, are straight out of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act, although having been around some of these establishments I can assure your Lordships that that Act does not work very well, particularly in regard to the size of dogs kept. But I should like to know who will be qualified to say in what conditions those dogs should be kept? I have looked in the Kennel Gazette this morning and 116 different breeds are mentioned. What person, unless they happened to have a particular interest in this subject, could tell how any of these dogs should be kept? I was most interested in a dog which I have never even heard of—and I have had something to do with dogs for quite some years—the Lowchen, and there are the two breeds of the Tevevreren and the Groenendael. Who on the council could possibly tell a breeder how to keep them under all conditions? I just do not believe that it is possible.

Then, my Lords, according to this Bill anybody who is registered as a breeding establishment is to be told how to move dogs and the conditions under which it should be done—how they should be fed, watered, and everything else on the way. What is in the Bill is all very desirable and is entirely the right idea, but it is unenforceable. How could an officer of the council at any time arrive at a place and say, "You will take your hairless Chihuahua in such-and-such a condition in such-and-such a car"? Or, shall we say, how can it be said that a Husky shall be taken in a car with a temperature of less than 54 degrees and shall be fed on dried fish? Nobody in the council can do such things and, unless this provision is put in the Bill merely as a brick or club to hit someone with, there is nothing that can be done to enforce it. How can any member of a council ensure that somebody who is breeding and keeping dogs is giving them sufficient exercise? Are they going to be there walking them up and down? I cannot see that this provision can possibly be enforced.

Should this business of breeding commercially and for sale be a fact, there is another class of person who might well be affected. This Bill affects private establishments. It gives a power which I do not like, but which might well be desirable; that is, it gives another person the right to enter an establishment. I think the fewer people who can walk into a place the better. Nevertheless, under some circumstances I would agree that it is most necessary.

LORD HOY

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? There is nothing new in this. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will tell him that with all our agricultural land the right of entry is granted. In fact, conditions have to he met and it has to be seen that they are met. There is nothing at all new in this.

LORD DE CLIFFORD

I accept what the noble Lord has said, but I still do not like it very much. The next person who is affected is someone in a private house. If, for instance, he keeps some small breed—perhaps four or five animals, of which three are bitches—in a house which is mortgaged, I believe that the mortgage might be invalidated if the house has to be registered as a breeding establishment. The people who will be really hit by this Bill are those whom everybody can see. People who are carrying on their business perfectly adequately yet are not commercial breeders, although they could come under this Bill, will be hardest hit. The people who do all of this breeding are very hard to trace, and while I very much sympathise with the noble Lord I still do not like his Bill.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I have been most interested to hear what my noble friend has said in his speech. He has put a finger on a number of points which had not occurred to me, although I think I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, the feeling that a great deal of the subject is covered by the calling in of the veterinary authority to check on matters such as exercise and feeding. At the same time, it seems to me that there are two principal problems here. As we are all aware, there is at the moment a great deal of cruelty and revolting behaviour in dealing with man's best friend, and it is important that it should be stopped. I think it is possible to say—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will confirm this—that if we amended this Bill it would further delay the introduction of a measure which would control this revolting practice. But I share my noble friend's anxiety as to how this Bill will apply, and not being aware of what he was going to say I have come with a specific suggestion in my mind.

For years I have kept two bitches and, incidentally, have bred from them for show with not inconsiderable success. One breed, the German Pointer, generally throws a litter of something like eight to ten pups, while a King Charles spaniel probably throws four or five and, while one may destroy a runt or two, one will sell them. My feeling is that if the definition in the Bill were slightly altered, it might help the noble Lord and myself. I refer to page 4, line 37. If the word "principally" were brought in, it might do what the noble Lord suggests and would improve the Bill. The Bill would then read: …where more than two bitches are kept principally for the purpose of breeding for sale". It is manifest that one has to sell one's pups. One breeds them to improve the breed and at times people have come to me and have said, "Next time you have a pup off that bitch, will you keep one for me?" At the same time, I feel most strongly that we should not amend this Bill or otherwise interfere with it if it will delay the control of this trade, which it is agreed on all hands is most undesirable and uncivilised.

With that consideration, I support the Bill and feel it would be right to give it a Second Reading. We can hear from the noble Viscount who is to reply, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, whether, in the light of what my noble friend has said and perhaps in the light of what I have said, it would be possible to introduce some slight Amendment which would solve the problems that we see, without delaying the application of the main object of the Bill to a process which we so deplore.

7.48 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)

My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I can emulate the speed of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in dealing with this Bill, but I do not want, just for the sake of speed, to skip points which I think are of importance—not that I am suggesting for one moment that the noble Lord did so. I should like to treat this subject in the same serious way as other Members of the House have done.

The House will remember from previous experience in animal welfare matters of this kind that the initiative is generally left to Private Members in both Houses, and by tradition the Government take a neutral attitude and listen to what everyone has to say. We are certainly doing that to-day. The Government's attitude is one of neutrality, but I think I can go a little further and say that we are sympathetic to this and that our neutrality is of a benevolent character. We have known for a long time that allegations have been made as to unsatisfactory, or in fact grossly unsatisfactory, conditions at some dog breeding establishments. The trouble has been that there has been little evidence one way or the other to refute or substantiate what has been said. I think a year or so ago the R.S.P.C.A. decided to carry out a survey of dog breeding kennels. After they finished that survey earlier this year I met a delegation of some Members of another place and people from the R.S.P.C.A. who had been involved in the survey to discuss the matter. It is good to know, from what they found, that there is no evidence of widespread abuse or anything in a serious way going right across the entire operation of the dog breeding world. They showed that the vast majority of breeders provide adequate care and attention and proper accommodation for their dogs. But they found that a small minority, about 7 per cent., of the establishments they visited were not satisfactory. These are the places that this Bill is intended to deal with.

I noted that my noble friend Lord de Clifford said that there were yet other establishments, not places where dogs are bred commercially, not pet shops or animal boarding kennels or riding stables, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, mentioned are already controlled under other legislation. That may be so, but it seems to me that these things tend to be tackled one bit at a time on the basis of the abuses which are shown to exist. I should have thought that we now had everything to show that the control over dog breeding establishments of the kind now in the Bill is a reasonable project to put forward. I have some sympathy with those who support it and I consider that the Bill deals with an area where a little strengthening legislation of the existing law may not come amiss. We do not think that the machinery of the Bill will impose an undue burden on the local authorities, or one they cannot cope with, and we do not think that the obligation on breeders to obtain a licence and allow their kennels to be inspected should cause any significant inconvenience.

I must say, having listened to my noble friend Lord de Clifford, that I heard him say that he is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. It is really for the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, to analyse in detail what my noble friend said. It seemed to me that most of my noble friend's speech went to the root of legislation on this subject and that it will be difficult to deal with most of the points he made without new legislation. It may be that we want to clarify further some of the points he had in mind. I would only join in one moment of hesitation on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I think that perhaps the level set at two breeding bitches is open to criticism. It is not a point that I want to take strongly but I understand that it is a subject which could cause concern among those who thought about the matter. I am not putting that forward as a reason for the Government to oppose this Bill in principle.

As my noble friend Lord de Clifford said, the Bill follows closely the lines of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 which was another Private Member's Bill. As I said, the Government have adopted an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards the Bill—and this was evident in another place—so I am left with the difficult question of the drafting. To be absolutely honest, there are one or two drafting difficulties. I am still pursuing possible methods of getting over the one that I think is the most difficult and vital of them all. I will continue to have discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and with his honourable friend the Member for Widnes about this, but I am hound to say, in response to my noble friend Lord Ferrier, that if we amend this Bill in this House its future is precarious in the extreme. Therefore, those who wish to do so must balance the desire to improve the text of the Bill—and I think it is capable of improvement in a number of places—against the difficulty which will almost certainly ensue if Amendments are made. Therefore, we are in a slight dilemma, partly because of the stage of the Session in which the Bill was introduced in another place, and that in its turn flows from the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, explained and there is no criticism involved in that.

There we are, my Lords. There are some loose ends, as I am aware. There may be methods of getting over the worst of them but I cannot absolutely promise or guarantee it at the moment. We have had some criticisms of a fairly fundamental nature from my noble friend Lord de Clifford and on one point from my noble friend Lord Ferrier; and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will have to decide what he wishes to do about those. So far as we are concerned, I repeat that our attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. We are grateful to the noble Lord for taking up the Bill in this House and to his honourable friend for piloting it through another place.

8.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT AMORY

My Lords, I was very sorry to miss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. I think it is something in which we all rejoice that in this country cruelty to animals is regarded with horror and, above all, cruelty to the dog. That is not the case in many other countries in the world, unfortunately; therefore this Bill is something which we should consider seriously. I still remember that years ago I got a tremendous "rocket" from the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, because on the way up from his country home he noticed a rabbit in the road suffering from myxomatosis. He stopped his car and examined the rabbit and on arrival at the House of Commons he had me "on the mat". He said, "Minister, why do you allow this distressing disease? You must stop it—action this day!" Then he went on to say that British people care about only two things and regard them with extreme disfavour. One is cruelty to animals and the other, to a lesser extent, is cruelty to children. He said, "If you go with them on those two things you can do almost anything you like with them in other ways."

I think this is a Bill which should receive a Second Reading. I think the cogent points which were raised by my noble friends Lord de Clifford and Lord Ferrier are matters which can be dealt with in Committee. I hope there will be a Committee stage. One point is very obvious: in every case in a matter like this, where the officials from local government cannot possibly have the depth of technical knowledge required, control and inspection must be carried out with a great sense of proportion and not be made over-fussy. Only real complaints should be dealt with. It seems to me, as was said by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that the presence of two hitches seems to set rather too small a scale. I hope that there will not be technical difficulties in the way of considering points of this sort at Committee stage. I feel there is a case for a Second Reading of this Bill.

8.3 p.m.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. The last part of Lord Amory's speech was not necessary. He was not present when I spoke, but I made clear that once they are registered, the premises of a breeder are open to inspection by an official of the council or by a veterinary surgeon or a practitioner acting on behalf of the council. There could not be a wider definition of people who could undertake this work and it will not be the councillors themselves. I hope that that will give an assurance about what will be done by the Bill in that respect. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that I used to get considerable abuse from honourable Members opposite me in another place when dealing with agricultural matters and when we had to make provision for inspection. Always we had to meet the argument about an intrusion on civil liberties. But we all know that unless we provide these powers the thing will not operate.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, made a mixed speech. He was making the case for the Bill while trying to argue against it. He spoke about commercial breeding. We referred to more than two bitches on the premises and not just to two. That lets out the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has only one of each kind. There must be more than two before the provisions of the Bill have an effect. That gives the definition for which the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, was looking. He spoke about the number of cases to which the provisions of the Bill would apply and said that there had been considerable research by some newspaper or organisation which proved that the provisions of the Bill would apply to only about 1,156 cases.

LORD DE CLIFFORD

My Lords, it was during the Committee stage in another place and the R.S.P.C.A. gave those figures.

LORD HOY

My Lords, even though there were only 1,150 cases that would be a good reason for having the Bill. We all admit that there is cruelty. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, used language which was much stronger than I had used. He spoke about breeders who bred disgracefully and unreasonably, and so on. I did not go to that length, but I am willing to accept his definition and say that if there are such breeders the case for legislation has been made out. I agree that there are people in the dog world who breed in order to improve a breed. That has gone on for many years. But such people would not keep their dogs in bad conditions. If you want to improve a breed of dog, or any other animal for that matter, the first thing you must do is provide the best conditions. If you do not, all your efforts will be in vain. There is no fear of these people being interfered with.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, complained that the Bill did not deal with certain other abuses and mentioned the question of kennels where dogs were hired. He said that that was an absolutely disgraceful practice. That may well be so, but the fact that we have not widened the provisions of the Bill to include that type of disgraceful practice ought not to be made a case for appealing against the ones for which we have provided. If the noble Lord feels so strongly on these matters I will make him an offer. I do not know what the Government will be doing in the next Session of Parliament, but if the noble Lord likes to promote a Private Member's Bill which would follow on this one and deal with the practices of which he knows, I will add my name to it and between us we may be able to do something to improve the lot of those dogs which he mentioned.

The noble Lord spoke about the expense of people who take dogs to shows. That has nothing to do with this Bill. He quoted the case of a man who spent about £750 in taking his dogs to shows and got only £43 in prize money. The man must have been reasonably well off. But if one spent that amount of money, and could prove it, on showing one's dogs at dog shows, I think, although I am not a lawyer, that had it been me I would have had a good try to offset the amount against my income tax, and I think I should have been successful. So the noble Lord must not expect me to weep tears of pity for that man. Nor can I accept the noble Lord's argument. Some of the things which he said one must accept. One does not want to interfere with the rights of private citizens in attempting to deal with someone who misbehaves, but I think that the noble Lord was "straining at the lease", if I may put it that way, when he spoke of someone with a mortgaged house where there were five bitches all running about with litters of puppies. I should have thought that that was a matter for the public health department and not something to be dealt with by the provisions in this Bill. I cannot think of anybody who would have five bitches with litters running about a house. I should have thought that most unhealthy, but not a very good argument for opposing this Bill.

My Lords, I am grateful for what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Parliamentary time is getting very short. On this point I ought to say that if the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, had been present he would have said a word in support of the Bill. Obviously he wanted to strengthen the Bill, but I had to write to him to say that while I should have been grateful to accept Amendments we had got to such a stage in respect of Parliamentary time that any Amendments which were put down would have to be taken to another place and there would be a strong possibility of losing the Bill altogether. I am certain that no noble Lord would want that to happen. We have to make the best of the Bill we have, whatever its deficiencies. Let us agree that it deals with a problem, although it may not provide the complete answer.

It tackles the problem and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will find an answer to that problem. After all, there is some responsibility on the Government. The Bill had its Committee stage and Third Reading in the other place as far back as July of this year. I should have thought that long before to-day the Government would have known of any difficulties which may ensue. I have some knowledge of what is happening, and I should have thought that those were difficulties which should have been put forward. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that there was a Committee stage in the other place, and it went so quickly that they hardly had time to know that they were in the Committee Room, but the Committee was available for anybody who, like him, thought that the Bill had deficiencies. So the Bill has gone through in record time. We are grateful to the Home Office and to the noble Viscount for the assistance which they have rendered. I hope your Lordships will understand the impossible position in regard to time and will not do anything in the way of proposing further Amendments which will make it impossible for the Bill to get through.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he assure the House that the Bill has the blessing of the R.S.P.C.A?

LORD HOY

Yes, my Lords. There is no doubt about that. The R.S.P.C.A. would be grateful to get this Bill, and I think they have made that view public.

On Question, Bill read a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

[The Sitting was suspended at twelve minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]