Dogs: Registration Proposal (Hansard, 2 March 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)
My Lords, the Government consider that a registration scheme will do nothing to reduce the number of stray dogs, which is the consequence of irresponsible ownership.

§ Lord Suffield
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he aware of the increasing number of cases of appalling cruelty to dogs, and of organised dog fighting, which such registration would help prevent? Is he further aware that there is also wide public support for such action from the farming community?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the difficulty starts with the fact that when there was a dog licence, which cost only 37½p, over half the dogs in the United Kingdom were not registered. The Government are ready to consider whether there is any scope for improvement to the large amount of legislation which already exists on dog welfare and control. However, any changes must be effective and enforceable and cannot be introduced as an emotional safety valve.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, have the Government consulted—and if not, will they consult—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on this subject, because the society has some very definite views on the matter, based on its great knowledge of such problems?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, at present there is no evidence that the number of stray dogs is increasing. According to the published reports of the RSPCA, the number of dogs which the society puts down each year has been roughly constant at 55,000 to 60,000 per annum during the 1980s. It is hard to see where the reported figure of 1,000 dogs per day, or what would be 350,000 per annum, originates from.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to consider what I said?

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that were my little dog here today, he would heartily endorse the original Answer and tell us that he has no confidence whatever in the policy of the RSPCA?

§ Lord Molloy
But he is not here!

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I received much fortitude from the remarks made by my noble and learned friend and also from the support of his canine friend.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord who spoke before the Minister, will the Minister take the Question seriously?

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, will the Minister also recognise that it is not just a question of putting down dogs; it is a question of trying to ensure that the animal welfare organisations, and the local authorities, carry out a job to protect the health of the nation?
Further, will the Minister undertake, as one of his initiatives, to organise a conference or discussions with animal welfare organisations, and the local authorities, which have recently been deprived of the income which they previously had—however small—to do that very job?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, first I must with the strongest words reject the insinuation of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I do not take the matter seriously. The very great difficulty, of which everyone in this House is aware, is that originally, when there was a dog licence, over half the dogs in the country—that is, nearly 4 million dogs—were not registered and did not have a licence.
As I said in an earlier answer, we are ready to consider whether there are ways to improve the situation. However, any such changes must be effective and enforceable.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, does not the original Answer imply that "the people is to blame, and that we should elect another one"?

§ Lord Mulley
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact that the derisory final figure of the dog licence, and the lack of take-up, was because the money went to local authorities? Would it not have been the case, had the Treasury been the recipient over the years, that the dog licence would now certainly be over £5? Therefore, would not such a scheme be a sensible thing to start?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, if half of the dog owners in the country did not pay the licence fee when it was 37½p, I suspect that the percentage would be even smaller were the fee to be £5.

The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, can the Minister give his reaction to the figure issued by the RSPCA of the cost to the country of uncontrolled and abandoned dogs of approximately £76 million, which I think includes animals which cause traffic accidents and damage livestock, as well as the cost of finding and taking away stray animals? Further, if he does agree with that figure, is that not sufficient justification for some sensible legislation?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, of course there is considerable cost involved. However, we return again to the problem of enforceability; that is really the crux of the matter.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, the Minister said that the licence was unenforceable; I think it would be more accurate to say that it was unenforced. When thinking about the matter, let us remember that a great many of our laws are not enforced. For example, would he not agree that the 30 miles-perhour speed limit is completely ignored?

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
That has nothing to do with the Question.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, with regard to enforceability, one of the great problems which would be the first to arrive on the doorstep would be that the number of dogs thrown out of their homes, dumped by the roadside, and so on, would possibly be very great indeed.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that it is still the law that a dog must wear a collar with an identification disc on it? Would he further agree that, if that provision were properly enforced, it would achieve just as much as a registration scheme?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am pleased to confirm the noble Lord's point about dog collars.