Standing Committee A
Wednesday 25 March 1998
[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]
Clause 1
Licensing of breeding establishments of dogs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
10.30 am
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 2_Licence conditions.
New clause 3_Commencement and duration of licence.
New clause 7_Definition of establishments.
Mr. Mike Hall ((Weaver Vale)): First, it is a great pleasure to debate my Bill in Committee. This is the first time that I have had the privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, and I hope that we shall be able to make good progress today.
I should place on record that I have had assistance from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in drafting the Bill. I have declared that in the Register of Members' Interests, although I am advised that it is not necessary to do so in respect of private Members' Bills. I thought it important to place the RSPCA's commitment on the record.
I also thank everyone who has volunteered to serve on the Committee. People who have taken an interest in the Bill will know that it was given a Second Reading on 30 January, but is now substantially to be amended. The aims and objectives of the Bill will remain exactly the same, but since its unopposed Second Reading the Home Office has taken an interest in it and asked parliamentary counsel to examine it. Parliamentary counsel has made a number of radical suggestions to put the Bill in order, which we shall debate today.
With your indulgence, Miss Widdecombe, I should like to explain two significant changes that are proposed, and then to deal with how clause 1 relates to the rewording proposed in new clauses 2, 3 and 7.
As I said, the new clauses propose a substantial rewriting of the Bill, but its aims and objectives will remain exactly the same. We are trying in the Bill to define what constitutes a puppy farm or puppy business, how such businesses should be registered and under what conditions they should be able to breed puppies sold for profit. We have also tried to establish what penalties should be imposed for breaches of those conditions.
The first significant change proposed since Second Reading is the removal of the power of local authorities to seize dogs before prosecutions have been secured in a magistrates' court. We aimed in the Bill as drafted to allow local authorities to seize dogs where they thought that breeding establishments were unregistered. On advice, we have decided that that might well represent an infringement of individual civil liberties and a contravention of the European convention on human rights. We therefore propose to remove that provision. Seizure would now take place only after a prosecution had been secured.
The second major change proposed by the new clauses relates to the supervision of pet shops. We want improved supervision and inspection of pet shops, but we are advised_again by parliamentary counsel and the Home Office_that the provisions of existing statutes cover that objective. It seems that the objective would be better achieved through an order issued by the Home Office concerning what is deemed to be appropriate inspection and supervision of pet shops.
The Bill will also allow the introduction by statutory instrument of provisions for record keeping at licensed breeding establishments. That will be done after consultation.
We do not want clause 1 to stand part of the Bill; in its place we propose new clauses 2, 3 and 7. New clause 2 concerns the conditions that must be met by all licensed breeding establishments to improve animal welfare and the welfare of dogs bred for profit. We want there to be a minimum and maximum age at which bitches can be bred from, to prevent them being bred from too frequently. We would also require people who are registered as dog breeders to keep records. I have already said that that will be done by statutory instrument.
These important provisions will help prevent some of the current excesses that are to be found in the worst breeding establishments. Most responsible breeders would breed from a bitch only once or twice during its life, but irresponsible breeders may breed from a bitch as many as 20 times. New clause 2 will deal with that. It will also allow authorities to examine the health of bitches and puppies where they are produced. The minimum age of one year and the maximum age of eight years will prevent bitches too young or too old being bred from. New clause 2 also aims to achieve a nine-month gap between litters, which will prevent bitches being bred from consecutively, season after season.
The new clauses have the support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, the British Dog Breeders Council and the National Canine Defence League.
Record keeping is extremely important; I hope that once the Home Office has introduced the necessary statutory instrument, an accurate record will be kept at breeding establishments. We aim to ensure consistency in record keeping. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has committed himself to introducing the statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure, once the consultation period is concluded. I understand that the Home Secretary has committed himself also to consulting interested organisations before drawing up that statutory instrument.
New clause 3 deals with the commencement and duration of licences. We want local authorities to grant or renew licences within three months of an application being made. At present, a local authority can, in theory, sit on an application. We want also to ensure that the licences come into effect either on the date sought by the applicant or on the date of issue, whichever is later. That would give breeders some latitude. New clause 3 also provides an annual licensing regime for breeding establishments.
New clause 7 defines breeding establishments. We seek to overcome the difficulties caused by the loopholes in existing legislation, whereby breeders can evade prosecution. We intend that breeding establishments should be deemed to be in business if they produce five or more litters.
I ask the Committee to reject clause 1. I hope that the new clauses will be accepted in its place.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): It is a pleasure to serve under your capable chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, especially as we were both engaged, at a late hour, in other business in the House of Commons.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale(Mr. Hall) on bringing forward the Bill. It seems eminently sensible and it will make intelligent improvements to the standards of welfare of dogs in their breeding and sale. I have only one question on clause 5, which prohibits the sale of dogs in public places. Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the reasons why it would be wrong, in all circumstances, to sell a dog in a public place? Apart from that exception, I am happy to support the Bill.
Mr. Mike Hall: I seek your guidance, Miss Widdecombe. We are not yet debating clause 5. Would you permit me to answer the question of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) now?
The Chairman: It is in order for the hon. Member to deal with any comments relevant to the immediate debate, and to reserve answers to other comments for later debates.
Mr. Hall: With your permission, Miss Widdecombe, I shall reserve my comments until we reach clause 5.
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester): I question the suggestion that responsible breeders would ensure that there were only two pregnancies during the lifetime of a bitch. If nine months have to elapse before the next pregnancy_I remind the Committee that we are talking about dogs aged between one and eight years old_it seems that more than two pregnancies could occur. Maths is not my best subject, but I think that there could be six, seven or even eight pregnancies. How do you relate that_
The Chairman: Order. I am not relating anything.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Miss Widdecombe.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Weaver Vale could qualify his remark.
Mr. Mike Hall: I said that a responsible breeder would probably want to breed only once or twice from each bitch. However, we know that commercial breeders want to breed from bitches slightly more often than that, but we hope that thee will be a gap of nine to 12 months between each litter. That would be acceptable to responsible dog breeders.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 1 disagreed to.
Clause 2
Inspection of breeding establishments for dogs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 1_Inspection and report before grant of licence.
New clause 6_Fees.
Mr. Mike Hall: The Clause relates to the inspection of breeding establishments by local government officers and veterinary surgeons and to the fees that local authorities will charge for that service. These provisions have been superseded. I hope that the clause will not stand part of the Bill and that it will be replaced by new clauses 1 and 6.
Under new clause 1, inspections by local authorities and vets would ensure that facilities are adequate, that the welfare of dogs is considered when licences are given and that charges are made on a sliding scale. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3
Seizure and forfeiture of dogs
Question proposed. That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Mike Hall: I advise the Committee to reject the clause. As I have said, we have reconsidered the issue of the seizure of dogs. Clause 3 would allow local authorities to seize dogs that they thought were illegal breeders. We thought that that might constitute a breach of the European convention on human rights. It would be better to introduce new clauses under which seizure would take place after prosecution. Therefore, I advise the Committee to disagree to clause 3.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Clause 4
Penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
| 
