| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.17 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) on his success in the ballot and on introducing the Bill. It gives me particular pleasure to say that because--he will not realise this--I was born and raised in Northwich and attended Sir John Deane's grammar school in his constituency. I vividly recall as a child walking our collie dog--long since departed--along the Trent and Mersey canal, where I learned the love of dog ownership. We have two splendid Norfolk terriers at home in Yorkshire. Like many dog lovers, I derive great pleasure from being with my dogs and walking them at weekends. I commend such a leisure pursuit to others.
As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale has said, this issue is primarily one of welfare. He is right to suggest that a legislative change is overdue. There is not time today for the House to consider, in as much detail as we might have preferred had time allowed, some of the issues in the Bill.
The Conservatives believe that the issues deserve greater consideration and deliberation. The best opportunity for that would be provided by the Bill proceeding to a Standing Committee, where the issues could be aired and addressed. I am glad that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale rightly pointed to the need to ensure that those who wish to sell dogs in proper circumstances are not outlawed. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the Bill might prevent people from mistakenly purchasing a dog from an unscrupulous breeder--which is all too easy--and ensure that those who want to purchase a pet and a friend for life purchase a young pup that is physically sound and has been properly reared.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) on his good fortune in drawing a place in the ballot. The Bill deals with unlicensed dog breeding, with the aim of raising standards in the industry. There is a general consensus that that is a worthy objective. It would extend the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991.
I do not need to describe the existing legislation or go into the detail of the Bill, because my hon. Friend did so eloquently and comprehensively. However, I shall give some background to the Bill. There has been concern for some time about the effectiveness of existing legislation, with arguments for the regulation of the dog breeding.
The all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare--in which the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who is in his place, has played a prominent role--has recommended changes to the licensing system under the 1973 and 1991 Acts. My hon. Friend has taken account of the parliamentary group's report. The Bill also has the support of the RSPCA.
My hon. Friend and the RSPCA have consulted widely and met with interested parties, including my noble Friend Lord Williams, my colleague at the Home Office. He has taken note of the concerns that we expressed and made changes. The Bill is better for that.
However, some concerns remain to be addressed. First, there is a problem with record keeping. Clause 1(3)(i) places additional burdens on local authorities. There may be difficulties with enforcement. Secondly, clause 8 introduces a regime for pet shops selling puppies that would ban the sale of puppies from pet shops. Thirdly, the pet trade remains concerned about the possibility of hobby breeders--such as those who breed to show rather than for business purposes--being caught in a licensing system. Finally, doubts have to be expressed about the value of compulsory inspections by a vet. The inspection could take place where there are no puppies on site, leaving little for the vet to inspect.
Having expressed those concerns, I shall give some idea of where the Government stand on the broad thrust of the Bill. The concerns certainly need to be addressed, and as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, it will be appropriate to do that in Committee.
The Government are sympathetic to the aims of the Bill, which are consistent with the Labour party's document, "New Life for Animals", which was issued before the general election. There is certainly a well-documented problem with rogue breeders, and we accept that it needs to be dealt with.
There are three concerns associated with indiscriminate dog breeding. First, of course, come welfare concerns about bitches and puppies kept in unsuitable conditions, with resultant health problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale gave some examples of that phenomenon.
The second problem is the increased likelihood of unhealthy puppies being sold to the public. We are all concerned about that. Last but by no means least, there is the danger of unscrupulous dog breeders tainting the legitimate businesses.
The Bill seeks to address those issues, so it is not my intention or that of the Government to oppose it. We support the principles behind it, but to make it acceptable to the Government, amendments will have to be made in Committee to deal with the concerns that I described earlier.
The Government do not object to the Bill's having a Second Reading and we wish it good progress. I hope that the House will allow it to proceed into Committee, and that while it is there the faults can be remedied and our concerns about the current drafting addressed.
Mr. Mike Hall:
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to the Minister's comments and welcome them. I believe that it is clause 5(8) that concerns him, not clause 8. I am prepared to re-examine all the issues that he has raised concerning the technical details that need additional thought in Committee, and I look forward to taking the Bill there at the earliest opportunity.
I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his encouraging remarks, and I thank the chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), for being here to give his support to the Bill. I ask the House to agree that the Bill be read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to promote this important Bill. The Government have announced their intention to introduce a White Paper to free up our information supply. That is welcome, and what was presented by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in many ways a superb Government document. However, it fell down in one important respect: it sought to preserve the 30-year rule.
We have a historical problem with secrecy in this country, much of which is linked with the administration of public records. For example, a file from 1935 entitled,
I hope that the Government will give my proposal a fair wind.
There is perhaps a cost implication; that would explain why the Government have been reluctant to endorse the idea of a 20-year rather than a 30-year limit, because I know that they are sympathetic in principle to freedom of information. If cost is the problem, it is important that we have a wide debate in the House to try to overcome it. It may be possible, for example, rather than giving a blanket exemption for all documents, to prioritise certain documents--from the Cabinet, for instance--that could be released earlier, at the 20-year limit. I ask the Government to consider that proposal.
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris):
The time is far too short for the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) to set out his stall and, regrettably, for me to reply to him. I know of his long-standing interest in the matter. He tabled a whole series of questions and secured an Adjournment debate on the subject almost as soon as he came to the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday 27 March.
2.27 pm
"Taxi drivers carrying fares without depressing flag",
is still secret. More importantly, there are papers from the Atomic Energy Authority dating from the 1950s that are still secret. There are many other documents that it would be useful for Members, and for members of the public, to see.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |