Orders of the Day — Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill
House of Commons, 7 May 1999.
ANNUAL REPORT
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The clause imposes a new requirement on local authorities. I am largely satisfied with the Bill as it appears before the House. It is much better than the Bill that came before the House last year. What is more, we have the chance to give it a proper Report stage and Third Reading. We are able to explore issues that have been raised with me, although I do not intend to try to force changes in the Bill that would not be acceptable to the coalition of organisations—or to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), or my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)— that has come together to try to make the Bill workable. Having said that, we should consider some issues to ask whether the Bill could be improved, whether it contains something unnecessary or whether its provisions may contain any retrograde step. I hope that those who read Hansard once we have completed our deliberations will see that we have considered all the points that may worry them. I hope that they will conclude that the House accepted or rejected new clause 1 and the other amendments that I have tabled after full consideration and for sensible reasons. I hope that they will see that we have produced the best possible legislation to deal with a vexed problem. The new clause would place an obligation on local authorities to publish a report and present it the Secretary of State. That obligation would not be too onerous on local authorities. Local authorities regularly have to present reports. They are bound by various charters and have to report on many aspects of how they conduct their affairs to the Secretary of State. In any case, most local authorities will want to state in their annual report to their electorate how well they have been operating various aspects of their business. Usually, they report on how well they are doing on environmental health issues, for example, giving the number of inspections carried out and so forth. One obligation on local authorities is the licensing regime, which is set out in clause 1. The improvement under the Bill will be the involvement of veterinary practitioners in the reports and in coming to conclusions, which will add a professional expertise that was absent. Since we have new legislation that is imposing new obligations, it would be worth while for local authorities to present a report stating how many licences have been renewed for breeding establishments in their area. We need to know whether the legislation is biting. We have all read about the awful examples of puppy farms in the country. I think that most of the original examples were in Wales. I make no slight on the new Welsh Assembly—indeed, it could not be a slight as the elections were only held last night for that body—or the Welsh people and I am not criticising breeders in Wales in particular. However, advocates of the legislation and those who say that something must be done always seem to quote examples of puppy farms in Wales. People have different concepts of what constitutes a puppy farm. Some believe them to be huge places with hundreds of breeding bitches, while others rightly point out that the abuse can be as wicked, with the breeding of inappropriate dogs with genetic deformities, and the conditions in which animals are kept as horrific in a small operation. Whatever one's concept of the breeding establishment—the Bill gives a definition—it is important that local authorities report on how things are going. In this place we have a tendency when we pass legislation to say on Third Reading, "This is a wonderful Bill. It is a great improvement and a great step forward." This Bill represents a great step forward compared with present legislation, but everyone knows that it is by no means perfect. The organisations that have come together to assist in its drafting all accept that they have had to make some compromises on the Bill that they would have written were they solely in charge. Everyone has had to compromise, but nevertheless we will all say that the measure is a great step forward. After a Bill is enacted, we have a tendency to think that we will not need any more legislation on the matter for a while. We will think that in 1999 we enacted the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill—
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
Order. It might be as well if I reminded the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the scope for discussion on the new clause is very narrow. An occasional reference to the title of the clause and the need for an annual report does not excuse remarks that cover the substance of other clauses. The new clause would provide for local authorities to report in writing to the Secretary of State on the exercise of the powers conferred by a number of clauses in the Bill. It is not an opportunity for a Second or Third Reading debate.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I accept your admonitions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The areas that I selected on which local authorities should report in new clause 1 represent some of the key powers conferred by the Bill. One has to be the number of licences granted or renewed to breeding establishments in the local authority area. It will be particularly useful to the Secretary of State and to hon. Members to know how many licences have been refused—that provision is in paragraph (b) of the new clause. We want to know how many have been renewed and how many refused. We also need to know, as paragraph (f) provides, any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere accepts new clause 1, one of the relevant matters might be that local authorities would have to give explanations of why licences were refused. The bare statistics on refused licences are relevant. If more licences have been refused than in previous years, is it a statistical quirk or are local authorities applying the law more tightly? If so, it would be helpful for us and the Secretary of State to know the reasons.
Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)
I do not understand my right hon. Friend's logic. If a local authority's annual return to the Secretary of State said that it had issued 12 licences and refused none, that there were no convictions under clauses 4 and 9, no disqualifications under clause 5, no appeals against conviction or disqualification and no relevant matters, does that mean that the local authority is doing a good or bad job?
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I accept my hon. Friend's point. One could not come to a conclusion on the quality of local authority inspection or whether it was licensing in the same way as an authority that had refused the 12 licence applications that it had received. There will be disparities between local authorities. That is where new clause 1(f) comes in. It provides that authorities can report any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Even with my inadequate wording, it might be possible to have a quality control threshold. The Secretary of State might ask authorities to respond in terms of best value. I am not sure whether local authorities would be inspected on their enforcement of the Bill, but the Government are insisting on best value throughout the country. Rightly, part of that regime will be audit or quality control. I accept that the inadequate wording of my new clause means that we cannot be sure whether a local authority is doing a good job by refusing every licence or a sloppy one by granting them all. Paragraph (f) would allow the Secretary of State to build in mechanisms to allow us to make a guess about that or at least to get some information. I do not want to labour my point in advocating new clause I because I have another important new clause on which I wish to speak and I know that other hon. Members want to contribute, but I want to touch on convictions. It is important to get a report on them from local authorities. The Minister may say that they are covered somewhere in the annual digest of convictions published by the Home Office. If we ploughed through it, we would find the convictions for various offences and crimes. After much study, we might find those that relate to animal offences or breaches of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. Those of us who take an interest in such matters would find it helpful if local authorities responsible for dog licensing and taking out prosecutions included in their reports to the Secretary of State their conclusions on the number of convictions under clause 4, which deals with imprisonment for keeping an unlicensed establishment. Clause 9 deals with the penalties in respect of clause 8 on the sale of dogs. It would be helpful to have information on convictions under clauses 4 and 9 and information from local authorities on disqualifications under clause 5. Those who are concerned about inappropriate dog breeding and puppy farming need to know the number of people who have been struck off and the extent of the abuse so that they can get a measure of their success in trying to deal with it. The fact that a local authority may be highly successful in dealing with it is pertinent information to which the rest of us have a right. It would be helpful if other local authorities could see success rates.
Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Again, I have lost the logic of his argument. There might be several breeding establishments in some local authority areas—for example, those in rural areas such as those that he and I represent, where people often do such work as a sideline. However, if my right hon. Friend represented Kensington and Chelsea, the chances of finding dog-breeding establishments in that area would be most unlikely—although it is possible that there might be some. My right hon. Friend is comparing one quite different local authority to another; it is difficult to compare the activities of local authorities in rural and urban areas.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I accept my hon. Friend's point; it may be difficult to compare their activities. Nevertheless, each local authority would have to enforce the same legislation that is passed by the House. If my new clause were accepted, they would be under an obligation to report the same matters. I think that my hon. Friend's point is not that what I suggest in the new clause is wholly wrong in concept, but that the new clause may be inadequate to deal with what is—yet again— a quality control measure. It is true that the number of people disqualified may vary in different authorities, depending on how active a local authority is in making prosecutions and on how many people are convicted. It will vary according to the attitude of the courts; courts in some areas may take a dimmer view of inappropriate activity under the breeding and sale of dogs legislation than those in other areas. One would hope not. However, the range of penalties will differ. Furthermore, when people are disqualified, there will also be differences from area to area. Nevertheless, it is worth knowing how local authorities are proceeding, in order that such information can be shared not only by the Secretary of State, but by other local authorities and the rest of us. One of the small, but important, points in my new clause is that Each local authority shall publish and present to the Secretary of State". The benefit of publishing is that it would allow best practice in local authorities to be shown. They could publish anywhere, either in a written document that people could read and say, "Ah, that's the way they're doing it in that local authority", or by putting the information on the internet or on their web pages. Many local authorities now do that with their annual reports and their charters. I commend that as a good way for local authorities to make that information easily available for people to see. By sharing best practice, we will make substantial improvements to animal welfare throughout the country. We may also achieve greater consistency in the enforcement of the provisions of the legislation, as local authorities take courage and take heart from the ways in which others carry out the provisions. When they study the published reports, they will be able to see the style and format. They will also be able to see any important matters referred to by the Secretary of State under paragraph (f) of the new clause. If he prescribes some quality control measures, the authorities will be aware of how others are carrying out such matters. That will be of general benefit. I conclude by pointing out that I have suggested new clause 1 as a possible improvement. I am happy to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere or of the Minister that it is not necessary and that it is not an improvement, or that it would destabilise the coalition of interests that has come together to get the Bill into a negotiated state. I think that my new clause is a possible improvement. I should be happy if my hon. Friend accepts the substance of the new clause. Perhaps, in another place, we may come up with better wording or suggest a better means of drafting it. I should be happy if the Minister suggested that. At present, I commend the new clause to the House as worthy of some consideration.
Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)
In another debate earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned his suspicions of Bills that were consensus Bills. My suspicions too are aroused, because this is a consensus Bill. It was not debated on Second Reading, as it received an unopposed Second Reading several Fridays ago. It was discussed only briefly in Committee. Therefore, at this late stage, on Report, it is right that we test the Bill as much as we possibly can, to ensure that it has a reasonable chance of achieving that which it seeks to achieve. The test of a Friday morning Bill that tries to increase regulation or prevent people from doing things is whether its outcome is worth the bother. New clause 1 does not in any way compensate for the Bill's central weakness—the difficulty in identifying a puppy farm. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will discuss that weakness at a later stage of the Bill. New clause 1 seeks to place an additional burden on local authorities. That is unacceptable, unless it can be shown that the Bill is strengthened by making local authorities undergo such a rigorous and bureaucratic procedure. As I tried—possibly not successfully—to point out in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I cannot see what use it would be if one local authority said that it had had no appeals, no convictions, no disqualifications and no relevant matters of discussion, whereas another local authority said that, in the same year, it had turned down two licences and prosecuted once. That would not allow comparison between the performance of different local authorities. That is a weakness of the new clause. If local authorities are given that burden and they report a nil scoresheet—if I may use that cricketing expression—it will aggravate dog lovers. We know what the British or the English dog lover is like. If dog lovers were to think that their local authority was not properly doing its job of looking after the interests of dogs, they would get very angry with that authority, even though it might be doing a perfectly good job. There might simply be no such establishments or identifiable establishments in its area. What a waste of time. In another sense, legitimate breeders of dogs might be damaged. If one gives a local authority a sensitive target such as this one, it becomes rather like the parking warden who must issue a certain number of tickets to show that he is doing his job properly. We do not want local authority environmental health inspectors or enforcement officers—or whoever is given the duty—to run a league table to see how miserable they can make the life of perfectly legitimate and responsible dog breeders in the local authority area. There would be a temptation for local authorities to seek to interfere hugely and over-burdensomely in such establishments. Local government already has enormous duties associated with environmental health, and new clause 1 would impose even more burdens. The House is in danger of initiating a chain of events, as it has done repeatedly before, by which the House passes the buck to local authorities to do things that we think are good. Hon. Members think that this Bill is a thoroughly good thing, so we shall pass it—and, by the way, the local authority will implement it. Then the local authority meets and decides what it will do, and passes the burden to the environmental inspectors. Those inspectors are then given that job, on top of all their other multifarious jobs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border must show that new clause 1 will significantly improve the Bill and correct what I perceive to be the Bill's essential weakness. He has not done so, so the House should reject new clause 1.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I have sympathy with the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I agree that we should try to ensure some consistency in enforcement of the new legislation—assuming that it passes—but I am also worried that a disproportionate burden may be placed on some local authorities. I am unaware of any dog breeding establishments in my constituency, yet presumably, if new clause 1 were passed, the local authority would be required to submit some sort of nil return. For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Hexham, I am concerned that that may generate concern among the—very strong—animal welfare lobby in my constituency as to why action is not being taken. We would then see all sorts of correspondence in the local papers about why we were not taking action against non-existent establishments. I think the proposed new clause will place a disproportionate burden on my local authority, which has plenty to do already. If it were to establish a threshold in terms of the number of licences issued or make some other requirement before imposing obligations on local authorities, I might have more sympathy with it. That would ensure the consistency that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border seeks regarding the proper licensing and policing of establishments. However, we must not impose unnecessary obligations on the vast bulk of local authorities. The Bill correctly places responsibility for enforcement on local authorities, which reflects local conditions and concerns. However, I am not sure why local authorities should provide annual reports to the Secretary of State. What will that achieve? What will the Secretary of State do with those reports and all of that information? Will he put the reports in a filing cabinet and forget about them, or will he be obliged—this requirement is not in the new clause—to produce a report consolidating all the other reports? The next thing we know is that we will have an incredibly complicated bureaucracy and we will be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, given the relatively narrow geographical location of such establishments.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I think the Secretary of State should be involved in the process because he may make regulations under clause 2 of the Bill, which relates to licensing conditions. As the Secretary of State has that regulation-making power, he should receive the reports so that he will know what is going on.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments, which clarify his argument. If there were problems in enforcing the legislation, I am sure that they would be highlighted by the animal welfare lobby, which is very well organised—I am happy to be associated with it. It has been said that this is something of a compromise Bill: many hon. Members would like to see the legislation include other objectives that are not achievable at this time. So I question whether a great deal will be achieved by passing reports to the Secretary of State. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that will inevitably put pressure on the Secretary of State to start producing his own report on the subject. I do not support the proposed new clause because I do not think it adds to the force of the Bill. We know that the groups involved are very well organised and that they will highlight any problems. I am sure that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organisations will ensure that there is co-ordination between enforcement bodies. While I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, I believe that the proposed new clause goes a little too far.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced this morning, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I am grateful for his general support for the Bill and for the thoughtful way in which he proposed the new clause. My right hon. Friend was correct in saying that the Bill has flowed from the work of 11 major organisations representing animal welfare, dog breeders, local authorities, the veterinary profession and the pet care industry. They have worked together closely to lay the foundations of the Bill, which strengthens existing legislation, closes loopholes and addresses the serious problem of some—but not all—large breeding establishments where standards fall well short of the desired levels. I emphasise that the legislation is aimed not at the responsible small hobby breeder but at the irresponsible minority of large breeding establishments. The Bill does not intend to impose inappropriately burdensome requirements either on those who must enforce the legislation or on those who must comply with it. In that context, I turn to the contents of new clause 1 as I think the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have demonstrated that there are some grounds for concern that the requirements that it imposes on local authorities would be inappropriately burdensome. I understand my right hon. Friend's worthy objectives in tabling the new clause, but I wonder whether it is entirely appropriate for the burdens set out in it to be imposed on local authorities. I understand that it is tempting, with a Bill such as this, to try to lay on local authorities a requirement to publish and present reports. I have no doubt that, in some instances, there is a good case for doing so, but I am not entirely convinced that the case has been made on this occasion. I listened carefully to the interesting arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced. 1 pm I am also concerned about the open-ended nature of the requirement under paragraph (f), which refers to any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. That is a requirement that local authorities might have to report back on "any other relevant matter". In another context—my right hon. Friend will know what I mean—I have come to take rather a jaundiced view of open-ended requirements under secondary legislation. That jaundice extends to the requirements that we are considering. In considering the new clause in its entirety, I am concerned that it may be inappropriate, and burdensome on those who have to enforce the Bill. I do not, of course, know what view the Government take. The Minister is better placed than us to form a view of how burdensome the new clause would be, but I suspect that it would, indeed, be burdensome. During consideration of the previous Bill some tributes were paid to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for attending the debates. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was present because the House was considering a very important piece of legislation. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the personal interest that he has shown in the Bill and for the support that he has given it. I have no doubt that that interest and support will be reflected in his contributions on Report. We have had a useful debate and the sentiment behind the new clause is worthy, but I am not sure that the case for it has been made.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)
As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) rightly said, the new clause would require each local authority annually to submit a report to the Home Office on the operation of this proposed legislation to regulate dog breeding establishments. Enforcement is a key element in the effectiveness of legislation: if it is not enforced, it will not be effective. It is well known that there is room for some improvement in the area to which the Bill relates, but local authorities have said that the problem of enforcement is that there are loopholes in existing legislation. They say that there is no lack of will on their part to deal with the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for whose kind comments I am grateful. The point of the Bill is to close existing loopholes. As the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have said, it would be bureaucratic if an annual report had to be compiled by every local authority. The requirement would mean that the Home Office would have to analyse the statistics and produce a report itself. That might be an internal report. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will accept that the new clause would make the Bill unnecessarily cumbersome. It is obviously right that we should try to ensure that the Bill is implemented properly, and, to ease the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I give him the commitment that the Home Office will review the situation after a reasonable period following the Bill's enactment. We shall subsequently determine whether it is necessary to introduce more prescriptive reporting procedures such as those that the right hon. Gentleman describes; and, if so, whether that might be dealt with in guidance to local authorities—which we are already able to issue. Those remedies are available if we feel that is necessary to use them. Moreover, as with all legislation, we shall keep an eye on how the provisions work after implementation. I therefore hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will accept that we shall be vigilant, and that, if it is necessary to issue guidance to local authorities requiring them to record and report in greater detail, we shall do so. At this stage, however, I prefer to give authorities the opportunity of using the Bill in trying to get to grips with the problem.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his customarily courteous and sensible reply. In the circumstances, I am willing to accept his assurances. He has been brave enough to breach the Home Office wisdom of the past few years, which has been, "Don't touch legislation on dogs," and to get involved. Although, on a previous Friday, he was not fortunate enough to ensure the Bill's passage, his involvement today—with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—may prove to be more productive. The Minister's offer was satisfactory. However, I should like just to reply to one small point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. He said that the legislation is designed to catch the big breeders, not little hobby breeders. I appreciate that, but let us not turn a blind eye to bad welfare conditions provided by little hobby breeders. Let us not assume that, because someone is a small breeder, their animal welfare is very good: it could be deplorable. Nevertheless, in the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
BREEDING OF DOGS: OFFENCES
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 4 is perhaps more important than new clause 1, particularly as it mentions the problem of suffering from any congenital defects". When I say that the new clause may be more important, I mean that the problem with which it deals is a vitally important one which one day—with or without the assistance provided by the mechanisms in the Bill—I hope that dog breeders and veterinary organisations will be able to get to grips with and stamp out. I am conscious that—as with new clause 1—if I am too keen in my advocacy of the new clause, I may destabilise the consortium that has formed to ensure the Bill's passage. Nevertheless, I should like to float the ideas expressed in the new clause. Perhaps, in another place, the provision will be considered, and a better or shorter version of it will be tabled, to deal with the problem of congenital defects. Paragraph (b) deals with the breeder who knowingly mates two dogs who are brother and sister. It will be obvious to everyone concerned that I am an expert neither in veterinary matters nor in dog breeding practices. However, I am interested in the effects of breeding and in the progeny of such dogs. I should be desperately concerned if breeding malpractice caused congenital defects which would be very painful and very expensive to correct. Of the 39 member states of the Council of Europe, 11 have signed and ratified the European convention for the protection of pet animals. The United Kingdom has not yet signed up to it. Article 5 was amplified by a resolution, adopted in 1995, encouraging breeding associations to reconsider breed standards to counteract development of the extreme characteristics that may cause welfare problems, by taking into account the anatomical, physiological and behavioural characteristics likely to put at risk the health and welfare either of the offspring or of the female parent. The convention indirectly advises against the use of line or incestuous breeding. Constantly breeding brothers and sisters together, all too frequently results in dogs with odd behavioural characteristics. Incestuous breeding of cocker spaniels in one line can result in spaniel rage. Such breeding can produce dogs that are mad or hyperactive or have other behavioural problems. I should also put forward the opposing arguments to ensure that those with different views have their points represented. I am happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) to say that my argument may be a good one but would cause problems in the Bill and should be dealt with in other legislation. The contrary point, as dog breeding organisations have pointed out, is that introducing such a restriction on mating dogs who are brother and sister would result in the disappearance of the breeds of dog that we know, love and cherish because of the characteristics that we see on the television at Crufts. Those breeds have come about because of inbreeding. Fathers are put to daughters, grandfathers to granddaughters and brothers to sisters. Once a certain genetic trait has been found in an animal and there is a litter of puppies in which the males and females have a particular good quality—it might be the length of leg, conformity, coat order or an ability to sniff out game—people breed the brothers and sisters in the hope of getting more puppies with similar characteristics. The top champions are apparently a result of such selective breeding over generations. It frequently involves what we would consider in human terms to be incest but what in animal husbandry can be regarded as a harmless form of animal eugenics that produces a dog of a particular nature. I am told that line breeding is frequently tempered by outbreeding to other lines. Occasionally an outside line of dog is bred in, avoiding the marginal risks arising from line breeding and preventing the canine madness that may be possible in some species. I have presented the arguments on both sides. I am in no position to judge. I leave it to my hon. Friend, the Minister or the veterinary profession to do so. I am happy to accept their judgment if paragraph (b) is not helpful in the process of getting the Bill on the statute book. Paragraph (a) deals with the very difficult issue of congenital defects. The problem has to be tackled sooner or later, perhaps by legislation. It is currently being tackled by voluntary means through the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and, for congenital eye problems, the international sheepdog society. The horrific scenes that we frequently see on puppy farms are well documented. Animal welfare groups can quote them and show pictures. The clause would be a radical improvement on existing welfare provisions for breeding bitches by ensuring that they were physically fit enough to cope with the rigours of pregnancy. We know that there are hundreds of unlicensed puppy farms in Britain. It is estimated that there may be 70,000 puppies a year bred for profit from those farms. The dogs are usually sold to middlemen for cheaper than the usual price. They often have undetected health problems, and that is the iniquity. People buy puppies that are only a few months old. A vet can tell whether a puppy may have a problem, but potential purchasers are often unaware that it has congenital defects that will come to light later resulting in agony for the dog. In some cases they have to be put down, but many undergo expensive surgery and veterinary treatment and the new owner still does not end up with a fit and active dog. 1.15 pm Unlike horses, which are generally vetted and checked out before purchase, puppies are usually sold on sight. We can improve the health of puppies and try to eradicate the sale of congenitally diseased puppies by trying to ensure that the parents are healthy specimens. The new clause would ensure that in future people buying puppies will not be saddled with the financial and emotional burden of discovering that they have bought a desperately sick animal. As there are no veterinary surgeons in the House, we are all average dog owners who are not well versed in the intricacies of dog ailments. When we make judgments on buying puppies, I suspect that most of our concerns will be emotional ones. We will not be looking to see whether the legs are correct or whether there is a possibility of dysplasia or retinal problems. We assume that the puppies are healthy. In Committee, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) mentioned a constituent who had bought a dog in good faith, only to pay a fortune in vet's fees as a result of its poor breeding and congenital defects. There are thousands of examples up and down the country. The new clause would ensure that the Bill addressed that problem. Congenital ailments are an inherent problem in dog breeding and in many instances they can be avoided by careful selective breeding. The most common problems include heart problems, hip dysplasia, spinal problems and ingrowing eyelashes. A few years ago I saw a television programme about a breed of dog called the Shar-Pei—a Chinese breed that died out at the end of the last century. It had been recreated by breeding together the types of dog that were thought to have created the Shar-Pei in the first place. Although the breed had evolved from dogs breeding in China over thousands of years, it had been recreated by breeding together X, Y and Z types of dog. The result was a dog that looked like the original Shar-Pei breed although the skin folds are so intense that they get rotten diseases in the flesh. Worst of all, because of the way in which the dogs have been bred, they suffer from ingrowing eyebrows and eyelashes that cause awful pain and distress. That is the most extreme example of genetic breeding—trying to recreate a dog in a certain mould when the original species has died out. In Britain, ordinary breeds of dog that we know and love—particularly retrievers and labradors—are being bred with hip dysplasia. When those dogs have puppies, they inevitably also have hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia is a broad term that encompasses many developmental and other abnormalities of the hip joint. The simplest way to put it is that if someone buys a puppy with hip dysplasia, within 12 months they will have a crippled dog trying to drag itself around because it cannot walk. I shall not sicken the House with some of the details that the British Veterinary Association has supplied me with about hereditary eye diseases and other congenital defects relating to elbows. At the moment, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and—in the case of the eye diseases of collie dogs—the National Sheepdog Society have a voluntary screening programme in an attempt to screen out all dogs with congenital defects so that people do not breed from them. If they do not breed from them, the problem is eradicated. My new clause proposes that that process should be put on a statutory basis. That can be done relatively simply, as the British Veterinary Association has panels around the country that are capable of doing it. I accept that that will not deal with every problem, and that the reference in the new clause to the dogs being in a "fit state" for breeding has a severe weakness; a vet might not be able to tell, and the dog's owner might be in a better position. Nevertheless, the second part of the sentence— and that they were not suffering from any congenital defects —could make a significant impact. It could be possible to deal with the common types of congenital defect, such as hip dysplasia, retinal dysplasia, collie eye anomaly, hereditary cataract, primary lens luxation—
Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)
Come to heel.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I shall do as my hon. Friend suggests. The problem is that some dogs cannot come to heel because of congenital defects. The new clause may have some deficiencies, as it deals with some vague and loose aspects. However, the part dealing with congenital defects is the most serious point. I believe that dealing with congenital defects in dogs and other animals used for breeding purposes should be tackled with more statutory backing than at present. If that can be done in this Bill, so be it, but I am happy to accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and the Minister that this Bill is not a suitable vehicle. However, I want the House to know that this is a serious problem that must be tackled.
Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)
This is the kamikaze new clause from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), in that he is aiming at the right target but will probably die in the attempt. If he knows anything about the world of dog breeding, he will realise that he is treading in some extremely dangerous territory with the new clause. He will have had some experience of dog shows, and the people who take part in them—excellent people though they are—are terribly dedicated, and they all have strong and differing opinions. One of the problems for the dog world is to get any form of agreement on anything. That is the strength of the dog breeding world; it is also its weakness. When my right hon. Friend refers, effectively, to seeking to outlaw line breeding, he moves into difficult territory as far as breed societies are concerned. The new clause talks about "congenital defects". We may think we know what that means, but it is the subjective decision of a vet. Vets disagree profoundly on what is and what is not a defect in a dog. My right hon. Friend referred to hip dysplasia, and we would all agree that that should be bred out. It is right that dogs are scored for hip dysplasia, but the difficulty comes in other matters, such as breed standards. Although this would not be considered a congenital defect, there is great controversy among vets and breed societies about tail-docking. There is considerable disagreement on whether the breeding that has taken place over many generations to turn a dog from a utilitarian dog to a show dog has caused a congenital defect. The classic example is the bulldog, which was obviously designed for the old-fashioned and unpleasant activity of bull baiting. It has now been bred into a completely different dog, but many would say that breeding to meet show standards has produced a dog with congenital breathing defects. The new clause moves into territory that is better left to the breed societies and to the good sense of the professional breeders and those who buy dogs. Caveat emptor must apply. It is very bad news that members of the public who are ignorant of the problems that certain breeds are likely to have will buy dogs without having them properly vetted. Anyone wanting to buy a labrador should first demand that its hips are scored by a vet; anyone failing to do that would fall into the same category as someone who buys a second-hand car without having it properly tested. Although it may be damaging to the breed, one cannot protect fools from themselves. There should be more publicity from the breed societies to ensure that people who want to buy pedigree dogs do so from respectable breeders whose dogs are properly registered with the breed society and the Kennel Club. That, and not the new clause, is how we can overcome the problem.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
On the point about caveat emptor, if I intended to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds on a dog, I would certainly get it checked by a vet first; but I fully accept what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said about people getting caught by sentiment and putting their heart before their head. If somebody buys a dog that is found to have a serious congenital defect, with all the consequent vets' bills and so forth, redress may well be available under the Sale of Goods Acts, although that is a convoluted way of dealing with the problem identified in the new clause. Subsection (b) of the new clause concerns in-breeding. I used to have a dog. She died about six months before the general election, of old age. She was absolutely fit until the day she died. She happened to be a mongrel, and there was no evidence whatever of in-breeding in her background.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) who suggested some worthwhile objectives and expressed some very worthy sentiments. I can give him the general reassurance that the Bill's provisions will put animal welfare considerations at the heart of the licensing process for breeding establishments, by requiring the participation of veterinary practitioners or surgeons. Dog welfare considerations, concerning overbreeding and breeding too young—practices that have resulted in some of the problems to which my right hon. Friend alluded—will be at the heart of the Bill. It is certainly extremely distressing when members of the public unsuspectingly buy puppies that turn out to have congenital defects and all sorts of problems . The new clause arises from worthy intentions but it may be a little on the impractical side. I await with interest the Minister's view, but it seems to me that the new clause would require a breeder to engage the services of a vet before each proposed mating. That would have very wide-ranging implications and, if that is the correct interpretation, I certainly would not want to go that far. I wait to hear the Minister's view, but I have some misgivings about the practicality of the proposal. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to draw reassurance from the fact that the Bill tackles many of the problems inherent in some large-scale puppy farming establishments, and that it will go a long way towards solving them.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)
New clause 4 is intended to deal with a problem that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) described well, but the remedy that he proposes would impose undue and inappropriate regulation. It would make it an offence for a breeding establishment to breed a dog without the veterinary surgeon certifying that both the bitch and the sire were in a fit state for breeding purposes and that they were not suffering from any congenital defects", or knowingly to mate two dogs who are brother and sister". The proposed new offence should not be introduced, for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) pointed out, it would require the breeder to call upon the services of the veterinary surgeon before each proposed mating. That would have resource implications, not only for the breeder but, down the line, for the purchasers of puppies. Secondly—the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made the same point as I am about to make, although in a different way—a vet cannot always give an opinion on suitability for breeding. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman went further and said that often the owner would be better able to make that judgment than a vet called in to carry out an examination for that purpose. Moreover, after the clinical examination, anything could happen. The vet could issue the appropriate certificate, then something could happen, as a result of which something could go wrong with the breeding. Then, when someone had bought the puppy, there might be litigation, not because anybody had done anything wrong but because something had changed between the issue of the certificate and the event. I do not believe that a responsible breeder would deliberately mate dogs that were brother and sister—although I do not say that that would never happen, and I am being careful with my use of the word "responsible". As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, to do so would run the risk of causing abnormalities in the progeny. Apart from the obvious animal welfare considerations, it would not be in the best interests of breeders to run the risk of creating puppies with defects. The hon. Member for Hexham was right to say that there are safeguards, especially in connection with the breed societies and the Kennel Club, which are perhaps the best bodies to deal with the situation. I can remember a constituency case some years ago that involved such issues, including determining the precise breed of a dog. It was satisfactorily resolved in the end by bringing the breed society and the Kennel Club into the equation. My experience in such matters is that if one can achieve good voluntary regulation, such as that provided by the breed societies and the Kennel Club, that is better than over-heavy regulation, especially when some of the offences could be serious. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he is not entirely reassured by my words of wisdom, will accept that the proposed new clause would be inappropriate.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
We are almost there. I have listened carefully to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and I accept the deficiencies in the new clause. I accept the difficulties in requiring that a veterinary surgeon must determine that both the bitch and sire are in a fit state for breeding. Even if the somewhat loose terminology were right, it would impose the awful regulatory burden of checks on every occasion and that was not my intention. I wanted to address the problem of congenital defects, and the Minister may have given me a clue. Under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, in determining whether to grant a licence for the keeping of a breeding establishment for dogs, the local authority shall in particular (but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds) have regard to the need for securing that the dogs will … be kept in accommodation suitable as respects construction, size of quarters … lighting, ventilation and cleanliness … that the dogs will be adequately supplied with food, drink and bedding material … and"— this is the important point— all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent and control the spread among dogs of infectious or contagious diseases". We know what sort of diseases the Act means. Clause 2 of the Bill would give the Minister a regulation-making power and the solution to the congenital defects problem might be for the Minister to make regulations permitting the local authorities to withhold licences, or to add the condition that the owners of the breeding establishments should operate the voluntary schemes run by the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. I have all the details of those schemes for dealing with the eye defects and the hip and elbow dysplasia defects. I do not want an answer from the Minister today, and perhaps the issue could be addressed in the other place. Hundreds of other congenital defects might be more difficult to detect. My new clause would cover all congenital defects that might need more than a vet with an ophthalmoscope to discover them, such as expensive x-rays. Through the licensing route, it might be possible for the Minister to give powers to the local authorities to insist that breeding establishments operate the congenital defects schemes. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind as a possible avenue—without destabilising this Bill—to giving more impetus to dealing with the ghastly congenital defects that have been bred in some dogs, in some cases deliberately. With those observations on the kind responses from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
INSPECTION AND REPORT BEFORE GRANT OF LICENCE
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
As I have said, the welfare of breeding bitches and their puppies is at the heart of the Bill. As the Bill stands, on receipt of an application for premises that have not previously been licensed, the local authority must arrange for an inspection by a veterinary surgeon or a practitioner. That is an advance on the position under existing legislation. As the Bill stands, in other cases—such as when the premises have previously been licensed and the holder of the licence is applying for a renewal—the local authority has a power, but not a duty, to arrange an inspection by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner. It has a duty to arrange an inspection by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner on the first application for premises not previously licensed, but if the application is for renewal, there is a power to inspect, but no duty. The amendment turns that power into a duty. The local authority would have to arrange an inspection in those cases. The amendment strengthens the Bill, catering for cases that might arise and strengthening animal welfare provisions. It is worth while, and I am glad to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Amendments Nos. 11, 2 and 12 have worthy objectives, but I fear that cannot support them as strongly as amendment No. 1. In general, the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border are too prescriptive. Amendment No. 11 would require a report of an inspection made by a local authority and a veterinary practitioner to be made available to applicants in all cases. The requirement in amendment No. 2 that those who carry out inspections should take account of the records of breeding establishments in every report and inspection is also too prescriptive. Amendment No. 12 is too prescriptive in another direction, in that it prevents any inspection involving the taking of photographs on premises without the owner's prior consent. I am curious about that amendment, but feel that it would be too prescriptive. I commend amendment No. 1 to the House as it would be an important step forward and a further important provision in safeguarding the welfare of breeding bitches and puppies.
Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)
The Opposition support the Bill. We see inspection of premises as lying at the heart of the Bill and the improvement of the welfare of dogs and puppies in commercial breeding establishments. Anyone who has been a dog owner—I own one—will have been disgusted by reports of dogs and puppies being kept and bred in the most appalling surroundings. That is why the Bill is welcome, and the rules for inspection of premises particularly so. We support amendment No. 1 because of a weakness in the Bill. Under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, licences are issued for only one year, and the existing Bill would allow an authority to reissue a licence without reinspecting premises. Circumstances in a breeding establishment can change markedly in 12 months, and the amendment would ensure that all of them were inspected at least once a year. Without it, an authority may be tempted—perhaps because of lack of resources—to neglect to inspect premises. That might allow an unscrupulous and cruel owner to continue with unsatisfactory practices. The Opposition support amendment No. 1, but I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the other three amendments.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I shall speak briefly about amendments Nos. 11, 2 and 12 and the one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, licences are issued for a year. The law allows a local authority to reissue a licence without inspecting premises. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that circumstances can change considerably over 12 months. Amendment No. 1 would ensure that all establishments were inspected at least once a year. Without that provision, a local authority might be tempted to concentrate on other priority areas. 1.45 pm On the other hand, I am conscious that I do not want to put an undue burden on local authorities. I am also conscious that, while I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere—I hope that the Minister will say that it is acceptable and all the groups concerned will be happy with it—which is worthy and which I would be happy for it to be pressed, I am not sure whether it is worthy enough if it ends up destabilising the legislation. I will leave it to the Minister to conclude whether it is acceptable in those circumstances. Amendment No. 11, which is in my name alone, is a probing amendment, as are amendments Nos. 2 and 3—I do not intend to press them against the wishes of the Minister or those of my hon. Friend. Amendment No. 11 would make the report available for inspection by the applicant. I am sorry if it is too prescriptive—it was intended simply to be fair. At present, no provision exists for applicants to inspect reports on their establishments, but under section 1(5) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, if applicants are aggrieved by the refusal to grant a licence they may appeal to a magistrates court. Surely it makes sense for applicants to have access to a report that rules against them being granted a licence so that they can mount a suitable defence. By having access to the report on his property an individual would be able to make suitable improvements to the establishment to tackle any problems. He would therefore be in a position to make a successful application for a licence the following year. In the spirit of open government that this Minister and other Ministers espouse, I should have thought it only fair that any person whose property is being inspected—in many cases, property that is not on some separate industrial site but is close to the home, as many kennels are attached to the house or are in the garden—should have access to the report, especially as the inspection will probably include the back kitchen of the house. I hope that that suggestion will be taken on board in that spirit for people who are refused a licence. I accept that the provision might be too prescriptive if every person who was granted a licence could demand to see the report. If someone is refused and has the right of appeal, it seems fair that he or she should have a copy of the report on which the rejection was based. Amendment No. 2 states that any report should take account of records kept by the breeding establishment. Those records must clearly display the breeding lines of puppies sold, which would enable vets to check that a breeder is not employing excessive line breeding, which we discussed earlier. The records should also include written confirmation from vets that bitches had been certified as fit to breed prior to mating. I will not press that amendment as I would have to go over similar ground to that covered on an amendment that I withdrew earlier. Amendment No. 12 concerns taking photographs of premises without the prior consent of the owner. In many cases, kennels are attached to or in the garden of someone's house in the country or on the edge of a town. We are not talking about property on an industrial estate. I suspect that the kitchen where the dog and puppy food is made will be the kitchen of the house, although there may be separate storage facilities. In many cases, the premises are more closely integrated with the residential home than is the case with other industries. I do not feel too strongly on the matter and am simply floating the idea that if someone from the local authority decides to take photographs he might be photographing someone's home and gardens. Hon. Members may say, "So what? If people are in the business of dog breeding and a report has been made against them, the authority should have the right to photograph anything it likes." That may be a legitimate point.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
Surely photographs are likely to be taken when those carrying out the inspection want evidence of malpractice or a poor standard of premises to attach to their report. In those circumstances, the amendment would give the dog breeder a right of veto over the collection of that evidence.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
The hon. Gentleman has a strong point. I would not want my amendment to rule out collecting important evidence because photographs were banned. I have not been able to phrase my amendment in a better form that would allow some rights to privacy to people in their homes. I do not want it to be a veto on the collection of evidence against people who should be disqualified or have criminal action taken against them. That is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that I do not feel too strongly about the point, but I thought that it was worth floating. I am glad that the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was not longer or he might have persuaded me that the amendment was totally flawed. I leave it there. The other amendments in the group are more important.
Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)
I make a brief plea to allow discretion to local authorities. We had a "may" and "shall" debate earlier. It is wrong for the House to be so prescriptive that local government cannot make its own choices. It is nonsensical for a breeding establishment that is well known and respected in an area to be inspected to such a degree every year. Local authorities should be allowed to make that judgment and issue a licence without inspection. We should all seek to minimise the burden of regulation rather than adding to it without positive gain. In the same way, I am cautious about amendment No. 11. I am not a lawyer, but, except for the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), I seem to be surrounded by them. The local authority report would have to be confidential because if it were published and given to an applicant for a licence, it would have to be provable. An inspection might take the overall view that there was something wrong with the kennel but not identify a particular item as the cause for refusing the licence. If the applicant decided to go to court to appeal against refusal, the local authority would have to justify its stance. I oppose amendment No. 11. I have more sympathy with amendment No. 2 because anyone in the serious business of breeding dogs should keep proper records. All those who breed properly already do. It is certainly a requirement in the breeding of livestock that complete records of progeny and pedigree are kept. I see no reason why a serious dog breeding establishment should not do likewise. The absence of proper records would suggest that an establishment was defective and unsuitable for a licence.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)
The Bill provides that a local authority, before granting a licence, can determine whether it considers it necessary to inspect the premises of a person who has previously been licensed in respect of dog breeding premises. Amendment No. 1 would oblige local authorities to arrange for the inspection of such premises by a vet and/or an official before granting a licence. That would be an improvement in that such inspections could only be for the good of animal welfare. For that reason, I recommend that the House accept the amendment. On amendment No. 11, clause 1 provides that on receipt of an application for the granting of a licence to operate a dog breeding establishment, a local authority may, depending on the circumstances, arrange for an inspection of the premises. A report is compiled about the premises, the applicant and any other relevant matter, and considered before the determination whether to grant a licence. Amendment No. 11 would require the report to be made available for inspection by the applicant. Although I sympathise with the principle behind the amendment, which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made clear, I am not very happy about the way in which it is proposed to proceed. The amendment would require local authorities to make the report available in all cases, whereas I think it would be more appropriate that they should do so only if that was requested by the applicant. I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the amendment is unnecessary and might even lead to problems for the reasons that have been discussed. Amendment No. 2 covers a different matter. Clause 2(2)(i) requires that accurate records in a form prescribed by regulations are kept at the premises and made available for inspection". The amendment requires that any report of inspections of premises for licensing purposes shall take account of records kept by the breeding establishment. Clause 1 includes the requirement that such reports may take account of "any other relevant matter". Records kept by breeding establishments may of course be relevant to considerations of whether to grant a licence. However, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) pointed out, we do not want to be too prescriptive as to the inspection of premises. If necessary, that could always be brought out in guidance to local authorities. That seems the most appropriate way to deal with any problems that might arise. Finally, amendment No. 12 would prohibit the taking of photographs of premises during an inspection by a local authority veterinary surgeon without the consent of the owner. I am not aware that local authorities routinely resort to photographing premises as part of their procedure for compiling reports. Such occasions are likely to be most exceptional, and, in those circumstances, there may be good reasons to use that procedure. Again, I would not want to be overly prescriptive as to how a local authority conducts its inspections. The hon.Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is in the Chamber but somewhat peripatetic at the moment, pointed out that a local authority should be able to use a reasonable degree of common sense in deciding what is most appropriate. I would not want to rule out the use of photographs, or to hedge in such use in the way that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may have intended in the amendment. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 1 and that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will not press the other amendments in the group, as they are either overly prescriptive or unnecessary.
LICENCE CONDITIONS.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 4, at end insert `and not more than ten years old, unless with specific written veterinary recommendation'.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
Amendment No. 14 is the most important in the group as it deals with a particular problem. Time is pressing and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is keen to explain the content of the amendments, so I shall leave the argument to him.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
As my right hon. Friend correctly anticipated, amendment No. 14 is important. Clause 2 deals with matters to which a local authority shall have regard in determining whether to grant a licence to a breeding establishment. It adds to the matters that are included in existing legislation, such as overbreeding by bitches—something to which I have already adverted and which is a frequent cause of complaint. Subsection (g) refers to bitches giving birth to more than six litters. That matter must be considered. 2 pm Amendment No. 14 deals with a similar point in relation to clause 2(2)(h). As the Bill stands, paragraph (h) creates an exception—it allows bitches to have another litter within 12 months of giving birth to the previous one where a veterinary surgeon or … practitioner has given written advice that breeding would not be harmful". Amendment No. 14 removes that exception. I understand that the British Veterinary Association supports the amendment because, in its view, a vet cannot give an opinion on the suitability of breeding in the circumstances that I have outlined. It is obviously inappropriate to leave in the Bill the exception based on the vet's written advice if the British Veterinary Association takes the view that a vet cannot give such an opinion. It must be right to remove that exception. To do so does not weaken the Bill; in fact, it may well strengthen it.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)
First, I deal with amendment No. 13. In considering whether to grant a licence to a dog breeding establishment, a local authority is required to have regard to criteria set out in section 1(4) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, and to include such criteria in the licence. The amendment would require that bitches are not mated if they are more than 10 years old, unless on the written recommendation of a vet. Secondly, although the Bill requires that bitches are not mated if they are less than one year old, the amendment would allow bitches that are less than one year old to be mated only on the written advice of a vet. We understand that the British Veterinary Association's stance on these matters is that the vet cannot give an opinion on suitability for breeding, as anything could happen after clinical examination, which might lead to litigation. Amendment No. 14 deals with clause 2(2)(h), which requires that bitches do not give birth to puppies within 12 months of a previous litter except where a veterinary surgeon or … practitioner has given written advice that breeding would not be harmful". The effect of the amendment would be to remove the exception whereby, on veterinary advice, bitches can give birth within less than 12 months of a previous litter. I understand that the British Veterinary Association strongly supports the amendment, on the grounds that the vet cannot give an opinion on suitability for breeding. The BVA considers that anything could happen after the clinical examination, and that that might lead to litigation. I therefore believe that amendment No. 14 is reasonable, and urge the House to accept it. Amendment No. 15 would enable any prospective purchaser of a dog to inspect records kept by the breeding establishment. The purpose of the keeping of records by breeding establishments is to help local authorities and vets to verify that the licensing conditions are being met. Although some businesses may wish to disclose the records to their customers, they should not have an obligation to do so. Some information—for example, on turnover—may be commercially sensitive. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to support amendment No. 15.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I am grateful for the Minister's words. I am pleased that we are making good progress. It would make sense to pass amendment No. 14. In view of the Minister's assurances, I should be delighted if we voted on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
IMPRISONMENT FOR KEEPING UNLICENSED ESTABLISHMENT ETC.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 1, leave out '4' and insert '5'.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I shall not speak to amendment No. 16 or the other amendments in the group, except to say that I should like to hear the views of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on amendment No. 9, which may be the most important in the group.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
Amendment No. 9 clarifies and improves the wording of the Bill. It strengthens the penalties imposed on those who fall foul of the law relating to breeding establishments. When a person is convicted of an offence in respect of a breeding establishment, the court may disqualify him from having custody of a dog. That person may be required to relinquish custody of the dog and to pay its care charges while permanent arrangements are made for it. The amendment clarifies the wording regarding the charges and makes the position much more plain.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)
Amendments Nos. 16 and 20 would increase the maximum level of fine for the offence of keeping an unlicensed dog breeding establishment from level 4, which is £2,500, to level 5, which is £5,000. I believe that that is a disproportionate increase, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will agree. Amendment Nos. 3 and 7 relate to clause 5(1), which provides for the court to disqualify an offender from having custody of any dog of a description specified in the court order. As an order may require any person who has custody of a dog to deliver it to a specified person, the effect of the amendments would be to allow the court to specify a time scale for delivering the dog. A court expects its orders to be complied with, so it should not be necessary to state a specific time scale in each case. Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 refer to clause 5(3) and provide that, when a court orders a person who has custody of a dog to deliver it up, it may also require the offender to pay for the care of the dog until permanent arrangements are made for that care. The amendments would require the offender to meet connected expenses, but we believe that the offender should pay only for the care of the dog. Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment arising from a typographical error, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear we wish to correct. I therefore recommend that the House accepts amendment No. 9.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
We are making excellent progress, and I am glad that I have been able to amend the Bill considerably. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted amendment No. 9. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
PENALTIES
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Bill's primary aim is to improve the welfare of dogs and puppies kept in commercial breeding establishments. It strengthens the existing law and closes some loopholes. I believe that it will make a material difference to the welfare of bitches and puppies in breeding establishments, particularly in some large establishments. Many large breeding establishments keep dogs in satisfactory and reasonable conditions, but some do not. The Bill will tackle that latter group. Breeders will be subject to stronger and tighter legislation, better inspections with animal welfare at their heart and several important considerations regarding the welfare of bitches and puppies. Those measures, which will be enforced through an inspection regime, will address the particular problems of overbreeding and breeding too young. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, the Bill is the result of patient, hard and careful work by a number of people and organisations. I have paid tribute already to the 11 that have been involved in bringing forward the Bill. I pay a warm and sincere tribute to the outstanding work carried out by Baroness Wharton in support of the Bill and in support of animal welfare generally. Tribute should also be paid to Barry Huckle of the Pet Care Trust, who gave us much support and a large amount of his time in supporting the Bill. I thank those who sponsored and supported the Bill. I thank especially my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), and the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has taken a significant interest in the Bill as chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. I should mention also the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who in many respects pioneered the way for the Bill with a similar piece of legislation last year. There are many dog owners and pet lovers in the House, and I know that there is widespread all-party support for the aims of the Bill. It is my sincere hope that the Bill will make a material difference by enabling us to tackle the problems that cause concern to so many members of the public, including the unfortunate people who have the experience of buying puppies that are unhealthy or suffering from congenital defects. It will help to do away with the terrible conditions in which puppies are sometimes kept in the sort of breeding establishments to which I have referred. These problems rightly cause concern to members of the public, and I hope that through the Bill we will be able to address them by tackling the abuses, bringing to an end the suffering of animals in the establishments that cause concern, promoting the welfare of bitches and puppies and doing our bit as a dog-loving nation.
Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)
I shall keep my remarks relatively short. I am a supporter of the Bill, and I want to see it make progress. I pay tribute to all those to whom the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred and to him for steering the Bill through the House. He has done a very good job. The Bill is an improvement on the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 in a number of respects. For example, it will stop overbreeding and under-age breeding. It will provide for better inspection and increased veterinary powers. It will require more accurate records to be kept, along with compulsory identification for traded dogs. It will introduce new rules for the sale of dogs at pet shops and through dealers, and there will be new penalties for misrepresentation. All these things are very welcome. There has been a call for such legislation. In 1996, the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare referred to the reasons for concern. It said: The large scale breeding and sale of dogs for commercial purposes causes a number of welfare concerns; puppies are often taken from their mothers too early; dogs are kept in cramped or unsuitable conditions; bitches are bred too often, making them more likely to produce unfit puppies with health problems; dogs are often given insufficient exercise or human contact and the long distance transportation of puppies can cause health problems. It is crucial that there is a much better staffing ratio. The RSPCA found one elderly woman looking after 120 dogs. Puppies need human contact at a crucial stage in their development; otherwise they are likely to be untamed. That is cruel because they become unmanageable and have to be put down. I am pleased about the provision to limit the number of litters per bitch to six. There will be records kept on that. The offspring of litters after the sixth are likely to be sickly, and the bitch will be likely to suffer ill health. It is cruel for both the puppies and the bitch. There will be a cost to the purchaser in the form of high vet bills. Unfortunately, there might be a tendency to put the bitch down after the sixth litter. I hope that that will not be the case and that efforts will be made to find homes for them. Nevertheless, the Bill's provisions in this respect are certainly better than current ones. I have four other concerns. First, in a previous Parliament, the former Liberal Democrat Member, Diana Maddock, when promoting a similar Bill, claimed that some owners, to avoid inspection, took puppies into their own homes. I do not think that this Bill will deal with that problem. Although we all respect the need to protect civil liberties, we should give a little more power to inspectors in order to close that loophole. My second concern relates to the selling of puppies at market stalls, in the street or at auction. I shall not deal with the comments of the RSPCA working group on the problem, except to say that it identified a problem with the definition of "a business". If people only occasionally make such sales, they are not considered to be operating a business and are, therefore, not caught by current legislation. The Bill does not seem to deal with the matter, which therefore requires further consideration. Thirdly, the point has rightly been made that all puppies should have a microchip implant. I strongly agree with that. We are perhaps moving towards requiring all pets to have implants. If so, I favour it. The Home Office should consider phasing in such a policy. Finally, as I have argued in the past, there is a case for giving RSPCA inspectors policing powers. Although local authorities have a role in monitoring and enforcement, some of them may be interested only in licence fees. The RSPCA is already playing an important role in dealing with animal cruelty, and its inspectors should have policing powers in fulfilling that role. I support the Bill—on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere.
Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the way in which he has conducted the Bill's passage. The Bill rights a wrong, will improve the welfare of dogs, and is supported by the Opposition.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
The Bill has all-party support—that of Liberal Democrat Members included—and I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on piloting it this far.
Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)
I commend the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has built his coalition and so successfully pushed through the Bill, which I should certainly commend to the House.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)
I join the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in paying tribute to some of the people and organisations who are behind the Bill and have supported him so well—especially Baroness Wharton and Mr. Barry Huckle of the Pet Care Trust. The hon. Gentleman himself had good fortune in drawing such a high place in the ballot, and I congratulate him on steering the Bill through to Third Reading without losing any support. We should perhaps not forget the ever-present right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), whose amendments, on this occasion, have improved the Bill. It would be quite wrong not to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who, 12 months ago, steered his Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill through to Third Reading, although it failed to become statute. Perhaps—in the prevailing spirit of co-operation—we shall not go back over that ground. I should also mention the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a long-standing interest in the subject and has long raised the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made a characteristically kindly speech in which he raised some important issues. His speech was partly about the fact that some of those issues are not addressed in the Bill. I shall study his observations to see whether there are any arguments that should be given further consideration. The Bill has enjoyed remarkable consensus in the House and has been a good job well done. If it completes all its stages in another place and finds its way on to the statute book, as I hope it will, we shall have a workable framework for the breeding of dogs, which must be good.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I am delighted to add my support to the Bill and wish it well in another place, whence it will go in a few minutes. I am grateful for the Minister's kind observation that my contributions today have helped to make it a better Bill. My contributions last year also helped to make a better Bill, because I single-handedly wrecked a Bill with a similar name. That understandably brought about a certain amount of correspondence. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has taken the measure up this year and, working with the co-operation of 11 groups, has helped to ensure a better Bill with more consensus. Consensus is not necessarily a good thing in itself, but on this occasion it is the only way to ensure a workable measure. I blocked last year's measure because there were some flaws in it. It got through the House without a Second Reading debate and was going to be bounced through on the nod with no scrutiny on Report. I thought it wrong that such a contentious measure should be dealt with in that way with no discussion on the Floor of the House. After I blocked the Bill I was contacted by the Pet Care Trust, which said that it had concerns about the Bill but no one would listen. Justice for Dogs and the National Canine Defence League then both said that, although the Bill was better than existing legislation, they would like something better. The Kennel Club and the British Dog Breeders Council came along and said "Thank God someone blocked that Bill, because it was flawed." They wanted various other measures put in. Having met those groups, I was convinced that the Bill should not go ahead in that state, so I blocked it again on 3 July. The tragedy at that time was that the RSPCA was behaving despicably on the Bill. It refused to talk to some of the other organisations, suggesting that it knew all about dogs and was the main charity, so it could deal with everything. Some of the other organisations—I shall not embarrass them by naming them and I would probably get it wrong because I cannot remember which they were—were adamant that the previous Bill had flaws because the RSPCA had adopted a highly possessive attitude and would not listen to sensible suggestions for amendment. The new Bill addresses those flaws. The Blue Cross and the British Veterinary Association then came on board. One of the first decisions of the working group was that it required an independent chairman. I was delighted about that, because as the person who had blocked the previous Bill I would not be regarded on all sides as someone with an independent or neutral view. I also had no track record of knowledge on the subject and we needed someone knowledgeable and independent. Lady Wharton was unanimously suggested to chair the group. I pay tribute to the tremendous work that she has done on getting the Bill to the stage at which it is about to go to her Chamber for consideration. When I ceased to have any involvement with the Bill there were seven groups involved. There are apparently now 11 in the coalition. It is a tribute to the noble Lady and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that they have managed to keep on board 11 groups when coming up with this compromise measure. The fact that it is a compromise does not mean that the Bill is flawed or inadequate, but it inevitably cannot do everything that every organisation wanted. If it tried to it would be even more contradictory than some of the amendments for which I have been criticised. The Bill represents a major step forward. It tightens up the conditions in puppy farms and quite rightly introduces the concept of welfare. It involves the veterinary profession and, importantly, an inspection regime. I should declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. That is not a paid post; it merely involves reading some of the tremendous amount of information on hip dysplasia and other problems. I am happy to send the Bill on its way as it is a considerable improvement on the measure of a similar name that was before the House last year, and on the existing legislation. The Minister has given us some good assurances today. We have built some amendments into the Bill and I am delighted to have had a small part in those improvements. The assurances that the Minister gave the House when he listened kindly and courteously to my proposals in new clause 1 will result in better legislation and better implementation and operation of the legislation in due course. The Minister assured us that he would monitor carefully the licensing conditions contained in the Bill and how many applications were granted and refused. He gave the House an assurance that if he was aware that any parts of the licensing regime were going astray, he could deal with that by Home Office guidance. I do not mind if my point about the licensing conditions is not addressed in another place as the legislation is good in itself, but congenital defects are one of the worst problems in the dog breeding world. Dogs get horrific illnesses not as a result of accidents or because people have abused them or failed to take care of them, but because they have been bred with congenital defects and action has not been taken to stamp that out. If the Minister or his officials can consider using the provisions of the 1973 Act and the licensing conditions that can be imposed on local authorities, we will have taken a tremendous step forward. It is a good Bill and I am delighted to offer it my support. Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has piloted through a tricky and contentious measure. No doubt the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) is right to say that there are matters that it does not address. No Bill can cover everything, but at least this one deals with more problems than it leaves out and in that sense it deserves to leave the House with the full backing of all the parties in the House of Commons and I look forward to receiving it back from another place, if necessary improved a little more.
Control of Residential Hedgerows Bill
Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I am well aware that I have about two minutes to raise a complex subject. My intention is to nudge the Government into producing their own measure as hon. Members do not have sufficient resources to draft proper Bills. The Bill relates to an issue on which, at first glance, people assume there are no major problems, but it can set neighbour against neighbour, lead to people's liberties being infringed and their health being affected, and often results in court cases. Last week I met the Minister responsible, who assured me that the Government's proposals should be ready within a couple of weeks. He said that they had taken soundings from a number of organisations including Hedgeline. Individuals have also written to the Government about some of the problems caused by high trees and hedges. One disabled lady was scared to death to leave her home because a burglar had hidden in high trees. Some people are effectively in an invisible prison. In view of the Government's assurances, I shall not press my Bill but wait to see what they do in the corning weeks. If they take no action, I shall seek to take the Bill further.