I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We are now in the Chinese Year of the Dog which I thought might improve my chances to get a reasonable passage for what has been justifiably called "the dog lovers' Bill".

I have been a dog owner on many occasions, but because of my transient life—commuting between Bristol and London—it would be impossible to provide the proper care and attention a dog would need. On drawing No. 5 in the ballot for Private Member's Bills, I found that there was a wide choice of subjects on which one could introduce a Bill. However, little did I know at the time that I chose to introduce legislation on dogs that I would arouse such hot passion throughout the country.

I have received literally hundreds of letters from people throughout the country expressing views on different aspects of dog ownership. I sincerely thank those who bothered to write, and I am also grateful to the many organisations which took the trouble to write and express opinions. Although I am unable to please everyone with this Bill, I have truly taken into account the representations made. I am grateful to my colleagues who have been kind enough to sponsor the Bill, some of whom were previously involved in promoting such legislation, although they were unsuccessful.

My thanks must go to the RSPCA which was part of the joint action committee on pets in society. The member organisations of that committee are the National Canine Defence League, the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Dog Rescue Coordinating Committee, the Kennel Club and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals.

I also thank the Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the National Farmers Union, the Police Federation, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, Pro Dogs, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, St. Andrew's Animal Fund, the Humane Education Centre and the many district and parish councils and private individuals who have provided useful and constructive information.

I hope that the House will see fit to give the Bill a fair passage. Although by no means perfect, it is a genuine attempt to make a contribution towards the tidying up of Edwardian and Victorian legislation. My original draft affected many Government Departments and Ministers. Because politics is the art of the possible, I eventually decided on a small, practical and useful Bill, which moved in the direction of helping to solve some of the problems that presently cause a great deal of difficulty for many people.

The Bill concerns 51/2 million dogs and a quarter of Britain's households. Shifting social structures and ever advancing technology constantly change attitudes in the community's lifestyle. Included in that change is the traditional role of pets in society. Increasing urbanisation has brought problems, both to pet owners and to pets, but it has also transparently increased the need for the companionship provided by pets.

Nowhere is that more true than in the family unit as children are no longer always able to provide companionship for elderly parents. The solitary old person increasingly turns to a pet and, more frequently, a dog for constant companionship. Such animals often give a sense of security which is manifestly needed. It is estimated that there are about 4 million lonely people in the United Kingdom. It is generally accepted that the working week will become shorter and, therefore, extend leisure time in which living things will be increasingly important.

It may sometimes be thought that responsible attitudes to pet animals and certainly relevant legislation have not kept pace with the evolution in pet ownership. Far too many owners believe that they provide adequately for their dogs, yet allow them to stray. Therefore, the animal welfare societies must bear the unwelcome but necessary humane destruction of an estimated 120, 000 unwanted animals each year. They neither want nor welcome that responsibility. Indeed, there has been some talk in these societies that unless the Government are prepared to act responsibly they will say "Enough is enough. Euthanasia is your problem, we shall have no more of it." Let us hope that it will not come to that.

The problems caused by uncaring attitudes are growing. Therefore, there is an urgent need for worktable able solutions if the dog is to occupy a proper place in society. There are many who believe that whatever the causes the relationship between man and dog has become seriously out of balance. It is clearly in the interests of neither that this should be so. In judging how serious the situation is it is helpful to have some assessment of the nature and magnitude of the problem. In 1980 the number of accidents involving dogs on the highway was 1, 603. There were 1, 915 injuries and 11 deaths. When we consider the number of casualties on the roads, about 328, 000, it seems that the number of accidents involving dogs is not significant. That is not to say that we should accept with equanimity the present level of deaths and injuries. I am merely saying that we should be prepared to make a balanced judgment.

Livestock worrying is another serious problem. The latest figures reveal more than 6, 000 such cases. That is an appalling figure and sheep suffer especially from the problem. I know that the Bill is welcomed by the National Farmers Union and by all hon. Members who have farming interests. Sheep worrying is without doubt a major problem.

My hon. Friend is right in saying that the National Farmers Union has welcomed the Bill, but he will be aware that it is concerned about an omission. In the published draft of the Bill my hon. Friend rightly included an exemption for blind persons who are dependent on guide dogs. However, there is no such exemption for working farm dogs that are kept to attend sheep and cattle. If and when the Bill reaches Committee—we all hope that it does—will my hon. Friend be prepared to consider an amendment along that line?

I accept the NFU's representations and I feel that I shall be making allowances for them. I know that the NFU wants the Bill to go much further and to make the scheme mandatory upon all local authorities, with the Secretary of State deciding exceptions. Licence fees for working farm dogs have been in force for over a century. I shall be prepared to institute an amendment if the Bill reaches Committee. I know that it is a privilege that is highly valued by the farming community.

Statistics on injuries caused by dogs are difficult to evaluate. However, an analysis of the patients treated in an emergency accident unit over one year revealed that 2, 064 cases of dog bites were reported, which represented 3 per cent. of the total attendance. Only 20 per cent. of those cases required further treatment. The analysis did not take into account the reasons why the patients were bitten, how many attacks were unprovoked and the number of accidental bites, scratches and knock-downs. To my knowledge, no such survey has been attempted. I am sure that an analysis would make interesting reading. The cost to the taxpayer of providing Health Service treatment for those who have been injured by stray dogs must be enormous.

Fouling was one of the major issues that I encountered, especially the depositing of excreta in public open spaces and children's play areas and on footpaths and verges. I am sure that some hon. Members will want to talk in greater detail about the human health risk. I have been surprised by the many responsible dog owners who have expressed concern about the image that they portray, which is related directly to the fouling problem. There is one organisation which I feel has an extremely sensible attitude. It advertises in its literature a product that consists of a small shovel and a plastic bag—it is commonly known in the United States as a "pooper scooper". Responsible dog owners use such items. In certain parts of the United States one is liable to a $100 fine for allowing a dog to deposit excreta on the pavement without removing it.

I have studied many worthwhile schemes where local authorities, in spite of present legislation, have established dog warden schemes and promoted campaigns for responsible dog ownership. A number of authorities have expressed strong support for the Bill.

The problem of dog packs is also important. Packs of strays—they are sometimes called latch-key dogs—run wild in some areas. I am sure that measures to encourage owners to spey bitches would be welcomed by many animal welfare organisations and the veterinary profession. There is a strong body of opinion that believes that there should be a reduced licence fee for a speyed bitch. Such a provision is not in the Bill, but the House should be aware of thinking on this matter.

There is much public anxiety about the possibility of rabies spreading to the United Kingdom from the Continent. The disease has been moving steadily westwards since the end of the First World War. Rabies is extremely dangerous and is usually fatal once the virus has reached the brain. Comprehensive controls and quarantine policies have operated for many years in the United Kingdom. As a result, in the past 50 years there have been only two cases of animal rabies outside the quarantine period. The United Kingdom is one of a handful of countries that can boast of such a record.

An outbreak of rabies in Britain would result in a radically altered lifestyle, especially for our dog population. A committee was appointed in 1970 to consider the issue and its main recommendations have been put into effect. Controls, quarantine arrangements and the necessary powers to deal with outbreaks of rabies have been strengthened. Contingency plans have been drawn up for dealing with infected animals that get into the country. Plans for dealing with an outbreak of the disease are hampered enough by a growing urban fox population, but equal difficulties are envisaged with the many stray dogs throughout the country. In the event of a case of rabies the existence of a large number of uncontrolled dogs in any one area would increase the chance of transmission of the disease to other domestic animals and hence to man. Although not designed for the purpose, the measures proposed by the Bill to achieve greater control over the dog population would significantly improve the chances of dealing with the disease should an outbreak occur.

Statistics do not give a clear indication of the extent of the problems associated with dogs. A thoughtless owner of one dog can give rise to much more anxiety and create far more ill will than several owners of well trained and well cared for dogs. Control is of the greatest importance. Dogs that are allowed to stray together with dogs that have no owners are contributors to the various nuisances that I have outlined. If the problems caused by strays can be dealt with adequately, everything else will fall much more easily into place. Imagine a society that refused to acknowledge the car and which provided no legislation covering garages and roads. However, that is what society has done to the dog. It is ridiculous, but unfortunately that is the fact.

Society benefits greatly from pets. Britain has always been a nation of dog lovers. There are more than 5.5 million dogs in the United Kingdom. The benefit of the animal-human relationship is considerable. We are only just beginning to unravel the complexities and the importance of the relationship. The track record of police dogs, sheep dogs, guide dogs for the blind and, more recently, for the deaf speaks for itself. There are also the more complex and considerable physical and psychological benefits.

Companionship is usually cited as the most important benefit offered by a pet. Interactive pets such as dogs satisfy people's need for affiliation with others. Improved self-esteem is associated with dog ownership. This is especially important for guide dog owners and disabled pet owners. For many, especially the elderly, a dog offers protection. Many people believe that a tin of dog food on the window ledge is more likely to act as a deterrent than a red alarm mounted high on the wall.

Pets play an important role in the development of children. A dog can teach a child about aspects of life such as care and responsibility towards other living creatures. Dogs provide a stimulus for exercise and play in both children and adults. Their ability to invoke such a response from man has meant that they have been used extensively in pschotherapy with excellent results. Recent work in this fascinating area has produced astonishing results. Pet ownership has been found significantly to improve a patient's survival rate following major surgery.

The benefits of pets in society is considerable and heavily outweighs the nuisance factor. The answer to the dog problem lies not in the banning of dogs from parks and housing development but in providing a dog warden service so that those who care about and are trained in animal welfare may be made responsible for the welfare of dogs in their locality. The finance for such a scheme would be provided by the dog owners themselves in the form of an increased, though not punitive, dog licence fee.

The irresponsible attitude of some dog owners has resulted in dogs becoming strays. By "stray" I mean a dog that is not under the control of its owner or handler. Such a dog is a nuisance to society. Strays perpetuate the crimes for which the rest of the responsibly owned dog population is blamed—fouling, roaming in packs, and damage to property. Some owners appear to be quite unconcerned about the habits of their stray dog. In a survey, one in 10 past and present dog owners admitted that their dogs strayed. Why do owners allow their dogs to stray? Changing lifestyles have meant that some dogs have to fend for themselves during the day, only returning home for food and shelter.

Many owners are unable to cope with a dog's sexual habits. They do not adequately restrain bitches in season or dogs that have a strong mating instinct. The increasing number of permanent strays are now being handled by the animal charities. These dogs have been taken into a household and then rejected, usually because the full responsibilities of dog ownership were not realised when the cuddly puppy was brought into the home. Local dog wardens could alleviate the distress that abandonment causes to dogs and they could advise dog owners about choice, training and care of the dog. In general, that would increase the local community's appreciation of the dog and the many responsibilities involved in ownership.

The basic statutory provisions regarding the seizure and disposal of stray dogs are contained in the Dogs Act 1906, as amended by subsequent legislation. At present the police are responsible for enforcing the Act. It includes such measures as the maintenance of a register of all dogs seized, and the provision that prior to the dog being transferred to suitable kennelling a brief description of each dog, its place and date of seizure should be noted, together with details of the ultimate disposal of the dog. Dogs seized under the Act are kept for seven days, after which they can be sold or destroyed. Dogs detained under this Act are properly fed and maintained.

Following detention of dogs by the police, the dogs are kept for the statutory seven days in local establishments:those of a local animal charity, premises owned by the police and administered by an animal charity or private kennels. All expenses incurred by the police, including the payment of the kennels, where appropriate, is defrayed by the police fund. Income from the sale of dogs is paid into the police fund. Many dogs that find their way into police custody are never taken to dogs' homes, as they are claimed by their owners or cared for by the finder.

The present situation is intolerable. It has remained unchanged for the past 76 years, with our police force being responsible for the initial boarding of lost and stray dogs as well as for the provision of veterinary attention. The police force is already over-worked. The police can certainly do without the added burden of running round the country acting as dog catchers. They have wished to end that activity for some time. Time spent in this way must cost the police dearly in resources and manpower. How much more economically viable is a system whereby local authorities can introduce a dog warden when and where there is need, wherby trained specialists would be responsible to their local authority for the collection of strays and the education of the public in responsible pet ownership. This problem will not disappear. It has to be faced now.

A charge for keeping dogs was first levied in 1796. It was replaced in 1867 by an excise duty of 5s, and later increased in 1878 to the present level of 371/2p. Today's equivalent would be between £8.50 and £9.50. During 1979 and 1980, the dog licence fee in England and Wales raised £1 million in revenue compared with the cost of collection of £1.8 million. A major weakness in the present system, as indicated by the working party report in 1975, is that it is unenforceable; only 50 per cent. of the dogs in the country are licensed.

:Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Under clause 3 of his Bill the setting of the level of the licence fee is a matter for the local authority. How does that tie up with legislation under which the Secretary of State imposes, or at least sets, the licence fee? How do the two marry?

Under the Bill, a local authority may determine the level of the licence in keeping with the costs that are involved.

What about the Minister's power? He already has the power to set the licence fee. How do the proposals marry?

I should like to deal with that point later. Under present law, a dog is required to have its owner's name and address attached to its collar when it is in a public place. That requirement is not being kept. The working party considered that all dogs should wear colour coded tags or similar identification to show that they had been licensed. That would enable the dog warden immediately to recognise licensed dogs.

The Bill would allow individual councils to set the licence fee for their areas at the level that they felt was justified. More importantly, it would enable them to provide a dog warden service that would enforce the system and so remove the present ridiculous situation in which only 50 per cent. of the country's dogs are licensed and the cost of collecting the licence fee exceeds the revenue produced. If a citizen wishes to be patriotic and is a dog owner but fails to apply for a licence, he saves his country 221/2p. What nonsense!

The licence fee recently suggested by the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society is £5, with the exemptions provided in the Bill. Clearly it is up to local authorities to decide the level that they consider to be reasonable, but care should be taken that the level set for the licence fee is not punitive. In calculating the licence fee, councils should take into account the cost of financing and administering a dog warden service, including the cost of purchasing a vehicle, equipment, uniforms and the provision of an adequate number of kennels. It should also consider running costs and an allowance should be made for the dog warden's salary and for a contribution towards the administration of the service. The cost of Post Office administration should also be taken into account.

Once set, I suggest that the licence fee should remain at the same level for three years and should therefore include a built-in inflation element. The figure of £5 per annum is widely accepted by local authorities as a minimum figure. The Bill seeks to implement the recommendations of the 1976 report of the working party on dogs. It seeks to give local authorities some of the responsibilities that are placed on the police under the Dogs Act 1906 and to enable local authorities to finance appropriate schemes by levying a sensible licence fee and to assume responsibility for issuing, recording and administering the licence.

Money derived from this source could be used to finance a local authority dog warden service. I recognise that those who support the Bill hold different views. The Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society and the National Farmers Union believe that the system should be mandatory for all district councils, unless the district council can make a sufficiently convincing case to the Secretary of State for an exemption. Another difference between my views and those of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society is that the latter believes that the licence fee should be universal, not variable. No doubt some hon. Members will pursue such points in greater detail in Committee.

I have tried to embody points within the Bill that will provide us with the substance of a service and that can be improved upon at a later date. The Association of District Councils has been extremely helpful and co-operative in passing on its experience and representations. Local authorities that do not have dog warden services will seek help through the association from organisations such as the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society. A great deal of research has been carried out on the details of the warden schemes that should successfully operate at district level and such information is available from those councils that have already developed a system.

It is imperative for the success of any scheme that full publicity should be given to the dog warden service and to its activities and objectives. Full stress should be laid on the dog warden's advisory and social welfare role. I am mindful of the success of independent contractors in local government—I think of Southend-on-Sea as an example—and I am also aware that the private sector currently provides a full-time, fully comprehensive dog warden system on a contract basis to seven local authorities in the North. I see no reason why a district council should be unable to delegate its administrative functions under the Bill to a third party.

Perhaps it is worth spending a few moments to clarify the role of the dog warden. It is to reduce the number of stray dogs on the streets by locating the keeper and returning them without delay, or by taking them to the local pen and making every effort to trace the owners. Additionally, as I have stressed, the dog wardens must inform the owners of their legal responsibilities—that their dogs should be kept under control, that they should be licensed and that they should wear a collar and address tags at all times on the streets. The dog warden should become the friend of dogs and dog lovers and should have an important role to play in any locality, giving advice and attempting to co-ordinate and marshal the resources of the various animal welfare organisations in the district. The warden should be approachable, able and competent to give advice on all dog problems.

Can my hon. Friend describe a typical circumstance in which a dog warden either is aware of the dog having fouled the pavement or is made aware by a member of the public? How would the dog warden follow that up? What would be the procedure?

First, may I answer the inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The Secretary of State's power to fix the licence fee is repealed by section 36(3) of the Local Government Act 1966. The power is transferred from central Government to local authorities.

The Bill suggests that the Government would have no involvement at all. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was not the view of the various bodies which took part in the deliberations of the working party? Does he take a hard line on that matter, because it is something on which his important and valuable Bill could founder?

I do not take a hard line on that point. Many organisations that discussed the matter with me felt strongly that the scheme should be mandatory and that the licence fee should be fixed nationally.

As I said at the beginning, the Bill will affect a quarter of the households in Britain. I am not seeking radical changes. I wish merely to introduce an enforceable system for the control of dogs, which can be a serious nuisance in the hands of an irresponsible owner but which can also be constant companions and a source of security to the old and the very young. I am ever mindful of the enormous contribution of dogs to our society. By introducing a sensible licence fee, local authorities could provide local dog warden services in areas where it was deemed necessary, thereby enabling human beings and dogs to live harmoniously in our towns and cities.

The matter has been the subject of debate for the past 10 years. My Bill is not pro-dog or anti-dog. It is an attempt to project a balanced and sensible view of a subject that I recognise can arouse deep emotions. To that extent, it is not the ideal Bill for which some of my hon. Friends who have worked with me in preparing for today's debate would have asked. I agree that it has flaws, but they can be dealt with in Committee, if the House so wishes. However, the Bill provides a framework for the future that can be built upon as we move forward from what is seen as a totally unsatisfactory position.

Am I right in supposing that my hon. Friend is aiming at controlling stray dogs? If that be right, what is the definition of "stray dog"? Is the definition in the Dogs Act 1906 adequate for the purpose?

I gave the definition of "stray dog" before my hon. and learned Friend came into the Chamber.

If, after all this debate and discussion and the considerable support that the Bill has received from many different organisations, both lay and professional, the House determines to jettison the proposals, the only sensible alternative will be to scrap all legislative control of dogs. How can a licence system that costs more to collect than it produces be logical?

I am a great believer in the freedom of the individual. I do not wish to impose on one section of the community, but there must come a time when the large number of stray dogs must be controlled. The nuisance that they cause—fouling, traffic accidents and livestock worrying—must be curbed. I am sure that a self-financing warden scheme run by local authorities, providing an informative and educational service to dog owners and paid for by increasing the licence fee, is the answer.

That is the essence of my modest Bill. I hope that I can count on the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and my hon. Friend the Minister, to facilitate its progress through the House.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall). The Bill, as can be seen from his comments and the correspondence that he has received, has already caused much discussion. As with many other Private Members' Bills, it has certain teething problems, but those can be sorted out in Committee. I hope that the Bill will be given a fair run and will become law, because there is much merit in what the hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce.

We are very much a nation of animal lovers, and I suppose that dogs must come high on the list. Dogs are not only great assets to many people, but great friends. Sadly, however, when they get out of control, they can present many problems. Stray dogs come into that category, and the setting up of a dog wardens scheme could be valuable in trying to curb the number of stray dogs.

I am in no way critical of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but we should ask why dogs become strays. Since Christmas, how many young dogs have become strays? We know that pets bought as presents for young children—Christmas is the most appropriate time—soon lose their glamour as small, warm and cuddly animals. They begin to grow and in some instances, because there is no concern for their welfare and training, they become a problem in the home, so out they go. I am sure that we have all had that experience with our children or those of our relatives for whom a dog is often high on the list of the sort of pet that they wish to have. I am sure that a responsible dealer in dogs will make the purchaser aware that dogs grow up and need looking after.

What concerns me, and some Conservative Members who are present today, are the conditions of sale of animals, especially dogs, in street markets. In London we have Club Row, of which I am sure many hon. Members are aware. At present, no law controls the activities of the dealers there. Very few of them, if any, could be called responsible dog dealers. Anyone who goes to Club Row on a Sunday will see the pitiful conditions of the animals waiting to be sold. Unfortunately, that is not mentioned in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed the provision in the Bill that, when a dog changes ownership, a licence must be acquired. Will that not to a large extent inhibit the problem that he is worried about? The hon. Gentleman mentioned cuddly dogs being bought for Christmas. In future, the act of buying a dog will have to be more deliberate because a licence will need to be acquired.

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. I welcome his comments. I hope that the provisions that he mentioned become law.

In street markets proper conditions for the sale of dogs are sadly lacking. People view with utter disgust the way in which dogs are sold in such markets. Often those markets must be the cause of stray dogs coming on to our streets.

Certain standards should be set. Amendments can be made in Committee. Anyone who sells dogs should be registered by the local authority in the area where the dogs are being sold. It would be for the local authority to set standards and to see that they were complied with. Standards should be set for places where dogs are kept prior to being sold. One sees terrible conditions in Club Row in East London. Anyone who sees those conditions says that there must be certain standards for the places in which dogs are kept. There must be conditions on places where dogs are kept and to whom they can be sold. If those points were looked at in detail in Committee, and amendments made, if necessary, they would go a long way towards meeting the aims of the hon. Member for Kingswood.

Perhaps I may seek to help the hon. Gentleman. When I asked the Government why they would not allow the Bill introduced by Lord Houghton in the other place to go through, the stock reply was that it was already covered by the Act covering pet shops. If so, the local authority operating in the Club Row area is miserably failing in its duties. I am aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with which I am closely connected, has tried to make that local authority carry out its duties. The Government have told me that they cannot force the local authority to carry out its duties. Therefore, I suggest that pressure there, even under the current law, might be helpful.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, I join her in her criticism of the abysmal lack of action by the appropriate authority in that area of London. I do not dispute that that criticism is true. As a member of the London group of Members of Parliament, I shall seek to bring the hon. Lady's comments to its attention so that it can put pressure on the local authority in the Club Row area, which, if it has the powers to act, has not tried to enforce them.

One of the points that concerns me was touched on by the hon. Member for Kingswood. I am not sure whether this is a requirement in law. Responsible dog owners ensure that at an early age their dogs have collars, which give their names and addresses—and often the dog's name. Often one does not see dogs wearing collars. do not believe that anyone can say that it is an infringement of anyone's liberty if a clause in the Bill states that there is a legal requirement that dogs should wear collars. That would help, because not all dogs deliberately become strays. Some dogs get lost. Some get over fences or go out of front doors and become lost. If such animals wore collars, they could be returned to their rightful owners more quickly than at present. Owners become greatly worried when they lose pets that they treasure so much. The Committee could look at that point.

Clause 3(3)(a) refers to licence rebates to those who are in receipt of supplementary pension. I suggest, with respect, that that clause does not go far enough. To an elderly or disabled person, a dog can be more than a pet. I know elderly people who see their dogs as a means of keeping more mobile. The elderly person says that he has a duty to take the dog out for a walk, which is often as much exercise for the elderly person as it is for the dog.

We often discuss this point in the House. Many people are not in receipt of supplementary benefit because they are borderline cases. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the sum of £5 for a dog licence, which is not unreasonable. However, let us be realistic. That sum could present problems to those who are watching every penny of their weekly income. Therefore, I hope that he will extend the provision to all those who are in receipt of a State pension, because there could be problems. I should not like the Bill to make people say that they would love to have a dog, but would find it difficult because of the cost of feeding it and paying the £5 fee. Many of us would say that E5 is neither here nor there, but it is quite a lot of money to many people on low fixed incomes.

Unfortunately, every day there are many complaints, irrespective of where we live, about the appalling problems caused by dog mess. Youngsters especially are affected. I am aware that in some parts of the country the problem has led to a great deal of conflict between the local authority and the community. Many local authorities have open spaces in their areas. They are responsible for allowing certain areas of their open spaces to be used as dog runs. A local authority might argue that it would like to do that, but the cost would be too high. However, we know that when mums or dads take out their youngsters to open spaces, especially when the weather is nice, they like to let the kiddies run and fall around. Indeed, that is how they like to play and enjoy themselves. The children do not look to see whether there is any dog mess before they start running around. If local authorities were required to provide dog runs for people to exercise their dogs, young children, their parents and other adults would feel that the rest of the open space was clear enough for walking or playing on.

I close on that point, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. I welcome the Bill. There may be technical points that hon. Members with legal knowledge consider need to be tidied up. Once this tidying-up is achieved in Committee, hon. Members can help to ensure that what the hon. Member for Kingswood is seeking to do soon becomes law.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on promoting the Bill of which I am a sponsor, and on so ably and comprehensively presenting the measure to the House. I take his point that he has modified the Bill in the hope of obtaining support so that it may become law. I should like to make a general observation on the difficulties faced by hon. Members introducing Private Member's Bills of any scope and size. Nearly 10 years ago, in an animal welfare debate which I introduced, I said that it was wrong for Governments to duck their responsibilities in this matter and that it would be far better if legislation were not left to the initiative of private Members so that truly comprehensive Bills could be introduced.

I should have liked to see—I do not intend any disrespect to my hon. Friend in his excellent endeavours—a Bill that not only introduced dog wardens but updated the law on dogs in one measure that everyone could examine. I realise that I shall not see that today. We must make the best of what we have. I put on record my protest at the failure of successive Governments to tackle the problems of animal welfare.

Strangely, this kind of Bill, for the better protection of dogs, brings together two entirely different strands of opinion—first, those who dislike dogs or regard them as a nuisance for various reasons and, secondly, those who care deeply about dogs' welfare and who are concerned about much needless suffering. I hope that those two strands of opinion will unite and support the Bill, irrespective of its possible shortcomings.

I know that statistics can be boring but it is worth emphasising a few figures to demonstrate the scale of the problem and the necessity of dealing with it. I understand, according to the best estimates or, perhaps, guesstimates, that there are about 51/2 million dogs in the country. Of these, about 500, 000 in any year are strays. Probably only one-half of all dogs are licensed. That is massive evasion. It means that animal welfare societies face major problems of resources in coping with the care of unfortunate animals which, at best, they put in new homes and, at worst, they humanely destroy.

Most hon. Members will know that I am closely connected with the RSPCA. Not so many know that I am also connected with the National Canine Defence League. Those two organisations bear the brunt of dealing with the irresponsibility of others. If I may speak wearing their hat, we are sick and tired of doing society's dirty work for it. A great deal of effort goes into keeping animals and trying to find homes for them. I can think of innumerable dedicated voluntary workers who spend a great deal of time on this delicate job. Unless the dogs go to good homes, the whole miserable cycle of irresponsibility starts all over again.

I invite any hon. Member sceptical of the need for reform to accompany me to one of the homes or kennels belonging to those two organisations. If they fail to come away feeling moved and distressed by the sight of so many dogs and other animals, they are harder and more flint-hearted than I had imagined anyone could be. It is depressing, indeed, to see the look of expectation on a dog's face when it thinks it is to be taken into a new family home only to find that no one wants it. I have been very much depressed over the years by the innumerable dogs that seem to be unwanted. In the last year for which full figures are available, the RSPCA found homes for no fewer than 40, 000 dogs but it was also reluctantly obliged to destroy a large number.

There should be no doubt about the scale and problem of the misery that is caused. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood described the difficulties that can arise through traffic accidents, sheep worrying and the possibility of the introduction of diseases such as rabies. I shall therefore not dwell on those matters. I endorse heartily the comments of my hon. Friend and the need for control for reasons other than the welfare of the dogs themselves. There has been a singular lack of activity, despite all the efforts of the voluntary organisations. It is worth reminding the House that the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society was unique in bringing together various strands of animal welfare organisations and others, such as the local authority associations, to try to reach some conclusion over the best approach to the matter. The expertise available to the committee and those who support it is immense. The veterinary services, the local authority organisations, the welfare organisations and the Kennel Club have all come together. In 1975, they produced an excellent report, mentioned by my hon. Friend, the heart of which was the proposal for a dog warden service and supporting suggestions.

It is noteworthy that the Government of the day set up an interdepartmental working party to examine the same problem. The working party reported in 1976. The views in the report produced by the outside bodies and that produced by the Government bore an extraordinary similarity. One might have imagined that, in the face of such unanimity, action would follow. There has been no action whatever except, perhaps, the willingness of various Ministers of various Governments to meet deputations and to put them off with specious arguments.

I am sorry to have to say that the record of Governments of both parties has been deplorable in their failure to meet the problem. They seem to have been united in inertia. I hope that the Government now will give a fair wind to the proposal in my hon. Friend's Bill. I look for support, not just benevolent or even malevolent neutrality, or indeed downright opposition. If I do not see any support from my Government, I give warning here and now that I shall tear them in shreds on this issue wherever I can and at every opportunity. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will know that I mean what I say.

I now wish to turn to the features of the Bill. I am a supporter of the Bill but I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not felt able to go the whole way with the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society and the other organisations to make the scheme compulsory for all district councils to carry out with a uniform licence fee fixed centrally. That would be the best and neatest solution. However, if that is not possible, half a loaf is better than none, and it would certainly be an improvement if local authorities—district councils, generally speaking—were encouraged to provide a dog warden service to carry out duties in place of the police. It is an essential feature, I hope, of the Bill that dog wardens should not be simply dog catchers; they should have not only a control function but an advisory function, in an effort to help to promote responsible pet ownership.

It is important for the package to be closely interlocked. For example, it is no use permitting the licence fee to rise if action is not taken to enforce it. I say that because I know that at least half the dogs in this country are not licensed. A back-up is therefore most important. It would be a good start if a dog warden were given the power to ask people to present their licences.

One omission in the Bill, which I hope will be put right in Committee, is that dogs should have attached to their collar a readily identifiable means of showing that a licence has been paid. Various experiments have been carried out in other countries in this connection. The most practicable solution appears to be a coloured disc which changes from year to year so that people can tell whether the licence has been paid or is out of date. That would be less easy to organise if it were done on the basis of an individual authority's own wish, and that is another reason why I would prefer a uniform system throughout the country. However, I imagine that it is not impossible to have an arrangement whereby those local authorities which decide to go ahead with the service and opt for a compulsory disc, or something similar, can agree on the details through their associations. The need to enforce is most important, and it is a matter that I hope will be carefully thrashed out in Committee.

The other matter that I wish to raise concerns the amount of the licence fee. Again, I foresee difficulties and dissension arising from a variable fee, depending on the whim or the suggestion of each district authority. This springs from what I shall call the basic error in the Bill of not making the whole scheme uniform. It would be sensible, even if the matter were left to district authorities to decide whether to introduce a warden service, if the decision to increase the licence fee were still taken centrally and the fee increased substantially. Only those local authorities which were prepared to provide the service could claim fees, and that might encourage authorities to introduce such a service.

I am largely in agreement with what the hon. Lady says, but I am a little anxious about what she is saying now. She said, and I agree, that the fee should be centrally determined, and she said that the fee should be increased substantially. Is she saying that the fee should be increased to such a point that the dog warden scheme and all related expenses were covered by the fee paid?

I hope that it would be fixed at a level that would cover costs. I am very much aware of the difficulties of placing a further burden on local authorities, and I hope that the fee would be pitched at such a point that one could reasonably expect to have a sum sufficient for the purpose for the foreseeable future. Various calculations have been made, and I suggest that, even now, a fee of £5 would be reasonable. If the matter were left in the hands of the relevant Secretary of State, the fee could be raised at any future time.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sets the fees.

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know is always eager to give advice.

I would be willing to give my services free of charge.

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know is very eager to help. However, if I had to pay for services I am not sure that I would seek the services of that particular hon. Friend.

I am aware that other hon. Members are anxious to speak. I conclude, therefore, by saying that although the Bill has its imperfections, it represents the best opportunity that we have to deal with a problem that has existed for a long time, shows no sign of going away, and on which the House should take action. I hope that if the Bill is properly implemented it will considerably reduce the number of stray dogs, because of the better controls, and—to echo a slogan from another organisation—that we shall be in a position to say that every dog is a wanted dog.

:It gives me considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), because I agree with almost everything that she said. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on the Bill and on the way in which he introduced it. I agree with the hon. Lady in her criticism of the Government for not being prepared to take action. In my view, a measure of this nature should have been introduced in 1976 as soon as the working party had reported, because the report that it produced received widespread acceptance.

I have tried to introduce two Ten-Minute Bills on this subject, and I am therefore conscious of the strong feeling about it throughout the country. That widespread feeling gives rise to a consensus, in that people are now demanding legislation because they recognise the extent of the problem.

The hon. Member for Kingswood talked about the number of strays and the number of dogs that had to be destroyed. The point is best made by reminding the House that today between 150 and 200 dogs will have to be destroyed because no one is prepared to look after them. If those 200 dogs were lined up at St. Stephen's entrance and photographed so that people could see how many dogs were being destroyed, I am sure that the demand for this legislation to cut down the misery and slaughter of dogs would be overwhelming. There are far too many stray and unwanted dogs and something must be done about them. It is disgraceful that we expect the animal welfare societies to destroy humanely that number of dogs each day.

Then there is the question of road accidents. In the time between the two occasions on which I sought to introduce Ten-Minute Bills on the subject there was an unfortunate accident in Stockport. A young person was killed as a result of a dog running onto the highway. A car swerved to avoid the dog and killed the person. There may not be all that many road accidents which result in fatalities because of dogs, but every one of them is a tragedy to the individuals concerned. We should do all we can to keep stray dogs off the roads. Anyone who drives down a motorway and sees a dog running loose, hears the squealing of brakes and the screaming from the dog when it is hit knows what a hazard a dog on a motorway is to itself and to everyone who uses the road.

Then there is the sheep worrying issue. It is a matter not simply of the 6, 000 or so sheep and other animals which are worried to death each year, but of the many animals which are injured, and the number of ewes, particularly at this time of year, that have miscarriages as a result of being chased round a field, through a gap in a hedge, or down a bank. It should be made clear that damage done to livestock, particularly on the urban fringes, must be stopped.

After I introduced my Ten-Minute Bills I received many letters from postmen, milkmen, paper boys and gas and electric meter men about the hazards that they experienced trying to carry out their daily work. They told me how often they were bitten by dogs, not necessarily owned by the people in the house that they were visiting. I had figures showing the large number of working days lost by postmen because of dog bites.

A child who is bitten by a stray dog might not have a serious bite, but the distress caused can be great and often the child is put off dogs for ever. Such children will probably never want a dog as a pet and will therefore miss a valuable experience. Hon. Members have referred to footpaths and grassed areas. I have received many letters complaining bitterly of how children come home from play with dog dirt on their shoes and deposit it on the carpet. The Bill will not solve all the problems, but it will be useful if it solves a few of them.

In some areas dogs raid dustbins. Some are half starved and they develop a technique of knocking off dustbin lids. Some dogs bite their way into bin liners. Some people so neglect their dogs that their barking and whining when they are locked up cause a nuisance to neighbours. A proper dog warden service might help.

As the hon. Member for Kingswood said, the person who buys a licence costs the country money whereas the person who avoids buying a licence saves the country money. Fees bring in about £1 million and cost nearly £2 million to collect. If we do nothing else, we must do something about the crazy licence fee system.

I welcome the Bill, but I regret that its promoter found it necessary to water it down and to omit many of the useful suggestions made by the joint working party. I hope that in Committee we can deal with some of the omissions.

If the message today is that we do not want the scheme to be left to the discretion of local authorities but that we want a national system with a national fee, will the Minister undertake to table the money resolution? I hope that he will not say that the scheme should be operated by local authorities. If it is left to local authorities, that will cause many unnecessary problems. The only people who will be pleased will be local newspaper proprietors who will be guaranteed that regularly they will be able to report a local authority row about the size of the licence fee and pensioners' concessions. If the Minister insists that a national scheme cannot be operated, chaos will ensue.

Living in two parts of the country does not make it easy to look after a dog, but unless there is a national system people who move about the country will be troubled about where to license their dog. It is often difficult to tell which is the main home of an individual who moves about. Would such people have the choice of licensing their dog in the cheapest local authority area? What would happen to people who move? Will they have to obtain a new licence when they move? All those problems could be solved if we had a national licence and national concessions for pensioners. Travel concessions already cause chaos. Do we want a similar chaotic system for dog licensing, with local authorities offering different concessions to pensioners?

The case for a national scheme with national concessions is overwhelming. If the scheme were national the same licence fee could apply for a long time. Most dog owners would be happy to pay a £5 licence fee if they knew that it was to stay at that level for five or six years. They do not want the fee to be £5 this year and for it to go up each year. They want firm assurances that the fee will apply nationally, that it will be at a realistic level and that it will not be pushed up each year. They want an assurance that the money collected will be spent on a dog warden service and on provisions for dogs. They do not want it to be a form of general taxation. We want a guarantee that the Government will fix the fee nationally.

I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that it would not be difficult to ensure that a plastic tag was attached to a dog's collar. The colour could be changed each year. That would make it easy to see whether a dog was licensed. A licence number could be printed on the tag so that a dog warden who found a stray dog could easily identify the owner of the dog. The name and address of a dog's owner is supposed to be attached to the collar, but I am told that such information is often difficult to read and sometimes not sufficiently comprehensive. A plastic tag of a colour which changed each year and which showed a number would be useful.

The licence should be purchased before possession is taken of a dog. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) talked about street markets. One of the best ways to eliminate the sale of dogs in street markets is to insist that a person has a licence before a dog is bought. It should be the duty of the person selling or giving a dog to check that a licence has been purchased. That would discourage impulse buying on which street market traders rely. We want people to realise that taking on a dog is a responsibility and that it is not a task which will last only five minutes, as happens with most Christmas toys. A person must accept that owning a dog costs money. Having to buy a licence first will ensure that people stop and think that becoming a dog owner is a responsibility.

It is suggested that a person with more than one dog and up to five should pay a licence for each. There is a case for saying that a dog owner should have a multiple licence. Insisting on a licence for each dog would penalise genuine dog lovers and people who showed dogs. Such people usually look after their dogs. We should be legislating for people who do not. I hope that we shall examine the possibility of offering a blanket licence to people who have many dogs. We could double the fee, but I do not think that we should charge £25.

We must consider how long stray dogs should be kept before they are destroyed. Under present legislation a dog must be kept for seven days before it is disposed of. Is that not too long? If a dog has a licence number on its collar the owner can be easily identified. If we reduced the period to five days, that would cut down the cost to the local authority dog warden service. Five days is reasonable. If a person does not know that he has lost his dog after five days, he cannot be looking after it.

We should also be considering the charge for reclaiming a stray dog. The Bill must make it clear that the local authority or any welfare group employed by it can charge the full cost of boarding the dog for the five or seven days until it is reclaimed.

There is also an argument for a small penalty when stray dogs are picked up month after month. I am told by dog wardens that there are, sadly, some owners who regularly kick their dogs out of the back door in the morning and take no further interest in them.

The Bill proposes a £10 fine for not possessing a £5 licence. That ratio is wrong. I am not in favour of high fines, but given a £5 licence fee it would be realistic to have a maximum fine of £25, and possibly £50. I do not expect magistrates always to impose the maximum, but at least the opportunity to do so should be available if they believed it could be afforded. The possibility of a heavy fine would encourage people to purchase licences.

If we have dog wardens it is important to involve them in the education process and not just use them to round up strays. The hon. Member for Kingswood stressed that. Local authorities should be in a position to make grants to groups which demonstrate to people how to train and look after their dogs. There are some extremely good training clubs, some of which do a great deal of work with youngsters to teach them to be responsible dog owners. Dog wardens should work with those groups and possibly the groups should be given financial assistance.

I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue. Much work needs to be done on it in Committee. However, there is a crying need for the proper control of dogs and for reform of the present chaotic system.

I shall endeavour to be brief as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) hopes to have time to introduce his Restrictive Trade Practices (Amendment) Bill.

I welcome the Bill and add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on his initiative and courage in attempting to do what successive Governments have run away from doing for so long. I say "courage" because it might be felt that the promotion of any Bill that attempted to impose even the remotest limitation on domestic dog owners and their pets—particularly one which enforced the licence and increased the licence fee—was risking votes.

My hon. Friend has nothing to fear. All responsible dog owners will welcome the Bill and be willing to hear the cost of an increase in the licence fee knowing that the present system is nonsense. Dog owners are even more concerned than the rest of us about the large number of stray dogs. More than 200, 000 stray dogs are handled by the police every year, and about 60, 000 have to be destroyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) spoke of 40, 000 dogs being destroyed last year by the RSPCA alone.

It is important that I correct my hon. Friend. I said that 40, 000 dogs have been found homes by the RSPCA and therefore saved.

Those are encouraging figures. But about 60, 000 dogs were destroyed by the police last year. That is an appalling figure.

The number of accidents and casualties involving dogs on the roads is also appalling. My hon. Friend said that 1, 600 accidents involving dogs had occurred last year, with 11 people killed and 1, 951 injured.

It is right that the responsibility for stray dogs should be transferred from the police to local authorities and that we should appoint dog wardens. That has the wholehearted support of my local council in Bournemouth. Moreover, it is exactly right that local councillors should decide the level of licence fee to cover the cost of the scheme and in line with local opinion. Once the Bill is enacted, I hope that the Association of District Councils will produce a national code of practice to ensure that there is no great discrepancy in the level of licence fees throughout the country and that it will also produce giudelines to owners on the keeping of dogs.

The interdepartmental working party report published in 1976 considered that all dogs should wear on their collars some form of colour-coded tag or similar identification mark to show that they had been licensed. I wonder why my hon. Friend chose not to include this provision in the Bill. It would be sensible for the warden to be able to know that any stray that he caught was at least licensed, without the necessity to check with the owner as required in paragraph 6 of schedule 1.

I also wonder whether my hon. Friend considered how the Bill could be used to reduce the appalling number of pet dogs and cats which are stolen and sold to laboratories for experimentation.

I noticed a report in the national press last week suggesting that owners should be encouraged to have their dogs tattooed—I hesitate to use the word "branded"—with their owners' post codes. Apparently one of the biggest problems encountered by the police when investigating cases of stolen pets is proof of ownership. An amendment along these lines could reduce the number of pet thefts and, more importantly, the police time spent investigating those thefts.

Of special interest to my constituents and to every visitor to Bournemouth or any other seaside resort is the vexed problem of dogs on beaches. Beaches should not be equated with any other open space such as parkland or woodland where perhaps it is more reasonable for dogs to be free to run, albeit within the control of their owners. Beaches are confined areas and, given a hot weekend, can become completely covered with people in various states of undress. Many of them will be children, and often they will be eating ice cream and other foods. Stray dogs roaming our beaches are a positive menace in those circumstances, and they can be very dangerous. They also excrete, of course, and so constitute a risk to health.

Most dogs are infected by worms. Just how dangerous some of the dog worms can be is not always appreciated. One such roundworm called toxocara carnis can result in the loss of eyesight in children and cause serious diseases of the liver and lungs. Another dog organism is called leptespira conicola. Once that is passed into the urine and a human comes in contact with it, possibly as a result of its being on car wheels, for example, it, too, can cause infection of the liver, kidneys and brain.

Most people will think twice about returning to a beach or seaside resort where they have found to their disgust that they have come in contact with dog dirt. Every holiday resort wants to ensure that its leisure and picnic areas are clean and safe—certainly Bournemouth does. Some years ago, my council attempted to insert a clause in the private Bill to restrict or ban dogs from local beaches throughout the year or for certain parts of the year. It was rejected in another place following Home Office opposition. More recently, the council approached the Home Office seeking approval for a similar byelaw but was told by the Secretary of State that he was willing to consider such a ban only for an enclosed part of a beach such as a children's playground.

The Bill will go a long way to reducing the problem of dogs on beaches. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood every success.

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 28 January, I commissioned reports from Coopers and Lybrand and from Sir Kenneth Cork on the current state of, and future prospects for, the De Lorean motor business. On the basis of these reports, it is clear to me that there have been some remarkable achievements in this enterprise in terms of constructing at Dunmurry near Belfast a modern and well-equipped motor plant, designing and developing a new car, recruiting and training a substantial labour force and getting serious production under way, and introducing the product into the American market.

The importance of this enterprise to the Northern Ireland economy in general, and to West Belfast in particular, is self-evident. In addition, the enterprise has underpinned substantial employment in a range of supplying and supporting businesses, in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain and further afield, I have had all these factors very much in mind during the last difficult few weeks. I have also had representations from creditors of the company who have naturally been anxious about the effects on their own businesses.

However, the reports made to me have shown that De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd is insolvent, and therefore cannot continue in business without the injection of substantial further finance. Mr. De Lorean and other directors of the company met me yesterday to tell me that, although a number of promising lines of discussion with private sector parties interested in investing in the business had been opened up, none could be brought to a successful conclusion in time to cope with the immediate cash crisis. For my part, I had to reiterate to Mr. De Lorean that, since the inception of the project under the previous Administration, the enterprise had already been supported to the extent of almost £80 million by public funds and there was, therefore, no question of further public money for the company. Mr. De Lorean had been in no doubt about this for the past three weeks.

On this basis we agreed that the company had no alternative but to go into receivership and at the company's request, the formal steps to appoint Sir Kenneth Cork and Mr. Paul Shewell as receivers of the business have now been taken by the Department of Commerce. The receivers, however, have already made it clear in a public statement that it would be their objective to secure, if possible, through a reconstruction of the business, a future for the Dunmurry enterprise as a going concern. They have complimented the skills of the work force and expressed an intention to carry on a limited programme of production. I very much welcome their statement of their approach; and I hope that it will pave the way to maintaining employment at the plant.

They have also asked that, to facilitate them in their approach, and in the light of an offer by Mr. De Lorean to put $5 million of new resources into the American company, we should agree to the withdrawal of certain guarantees made by the American parent company to the Belfast manufacturing company. To enable the companies to continue to trade and to maintain an orderly market for the cars in the United States, I have, on the advice of the receivers, agreed to the withdrawal of these guarantees. Since the American company would be insolvent without the injection of Mr. De Lorean's personal investment, the Government would not be surrendering anything of practical value.

It is clearly a matter of concern to the Government that this position should have been reached. There can be no guarantee that, through reconstruction, a secure way ahead can be found. But the receivers have made it clear that serious negotiations with interested parties are under way.

I hope that all concerned will now work together to explore the scope for establishing a viable, realistic and financially secure basis on which the De Lorean sports motor project might survive and continue to provide much needed employment in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The board of DMCL has assured me that it will do all in its power to assist the receivers in their task.

I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State who has not left the matter to fester over another weekend. Together with the workers and the suppliers in Northern Ireland the Opposition welcome an end to the uncertainties of recent weeks. However, waiting until about six minutes to eleven o'clock before sending out the statement leaves unclear much that we would have liked to look at in more depth. I understand the situation and I am not grumbling about having the statement on a Friday morning, as we pushed the Secretary of State to make one at the earliest possible opportunity.

If there has to be a receiver I welcome the appointment of Sir Kenneth Cork. He knows Northern Ireland and the significance of the De Lorean plant to the Province in jobs and confidence, and to the political stability of Northern Ireland. As the House knows only too well, there are over 7, 000 jobs inside and outside the Belfast factory that hinge on continued production in the De Lorean factory. A constructive receivership, which I hope is what is meant by the statement, must work ceaselessly to preserve jobs at a time of record high unemployment levels in Northern Ireland.

The key word for the future must be confidence. The De Lorean car will be marketable only when dealers and consumers have confidence in the continuity of production and in the support of the House. I am not surprised that Mr. De Lorean is having troubles in America trying to raise the money. This is one of the effects of the Government's policies. The comments of some hon. Members have been extremely unhelpful and damaging over the recent months. The more that De Lorean is knocked—and I have done some of that myself—the more the sales are restricted in America. Restricting sales will restrict the jobs opportunities of the people in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is essential that we have a good working relationship between the Government and the board of the De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. We want to see an end to personal antagonisms and more attention devoted to the product and the jobs that it can provide. There is a future for the De Lorean car in numerous markets throughout the world and we would like to see a more constructive and positive approach from Government and the House towards helping the company to sell the cars. Selling the cars is the only way to preserve the jobs.

On the wider front, will the Secretary of State now tell the House precisely what are the Government's economic policies for Northern Ireland? The collapse of De Lorean is wrapped up with the economic policies of the Government in Northern Ireland. Surely, the Government must realise that security and political progress in the Province can be achieved only when there is visible economic and social improvement. Unless we can be seen to be improving the prospect for jobs in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State can forget about political initiatives.

We are hopeful that jobs will be saved, but the Secretary of State must now re-double his efforts to bring investment to Northern Ireland. He has an uphill task to convince overseas investors that the Government offer worthwhile incentives and support in the light of what has happened to De Lorean and other companies. He has a long way to go to get back to the position that obtained when the Labour Government left office, when there was a record level of employment in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State accept the recent estimate of the Manpower Services Commission that each new unemployed person costs the Exchequer £5, 000 per annum? If the 7, 000 jobs associated with De Lorean in the United Kingdom, in the constituencies of hon. Members, were to be destroyed, the cost to the Exchequer would be £36 million this year alone.

I am grateful for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) about the need to do all that we can to ensure that this is a constructive receivership. We all hope that Sir Kenneth Cork will be able to build a new company, which will be of interest to people willing to invest in it.

I apologise to the right hon. Member for the delay in letting him have the statement. Mr. De Lorean asked us to leave it until six o'clock this morning before making up his mind, because he was still hoping until the last minute for a cash injection to arrive from the West Coast of America. Therefore we could not finally go ahead until after 6 am, although all the provisional arrangements had been made.

I have had the question of employment very much in mind over the past few weeks and have considered how we could preserve the best of the project. But the Government have put £80 million into the project in the past few years. The time had come when we had to say "No". Had we taken any other course, we should have had no credibility left in respect of the other ways in which we are trying to help in Northern Ireland. It was a difficult decision. We also had to bear in mind the implications for a large number of small creditors on both sides of the Irish Sea.

The Government's policy is to do all that we can to bring fresh investment to Northern Ireland. We give top priority to funds for commercial development. But until we have political advance and stability and better security in Northern Ireland it will be difficult to attract industries that will survive and prosper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be hoped that in this case, too, bankruptcy will produce its usual beneficent and, indeed, indispensable, effects and that it will be what it ought to be—the cause of securing genuine investment in genuine prospects? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the sums of public money that have in any case been lost would have gone far to provide Northern Ireland with a permanent energy connection between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom, on which firmly based industrial progress could have taken place? Will he bear that experience in mind in the formation of his future industrial and economic policies in the Province?

There are lessons to be learnt for everyone on these occasions. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about a receivership giving an opportunity for a proper reconstruction. That is right.

I do not go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman about the east-west connector. It would have cost considerably more than £80 million and would not necessarily have resulted in a definite improvement in Northern Ireland's energy position. We must consider all the factors together and do our utmost for the Northern Ireland economy. No one should underestimate the real suffering of the Northern Ireland economy, with 20 per cent. unemployment and in many areas over 40 per cent. male unemployment. If we did not have a problem of security and violence in Northern Ireland for other reasons, we should be close to it because of current economic and social conditions.

Is the Minister aware that the question mark over De Lorean has had a demoralising effect in Northern Ireland, not only on the work force but generally? Will the remaining work force immediately be called to a meeting and told precisely what is happening? Is he further aware that we are appalled when we see on our television screens workers coming out of the factory saying "We do not know what is happening; we may not be in a job tomorrow"? Will he give us a firm assurance that the Government's instruction to Sir Kenneth Cork is that the factory should be kept going, as Sir Kenneth is on record as saying that it can be viable? Can the right hon. Gentleman give hope to the workers who have been paid off without the necessary 90 days' notice that they will have compensation?

I fully understand the great anxiety and uncertainty for the work force over the past few weeks. One would have liked to have said more to the workers to help them understand the position. Unfortunately, with so many commercial considerations involved and negotiations going on, it was not possible to give them further information. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been in touch with the unions already this morning. Sir Kenneth Cork's statement at 9.30 am will have reassured the work force about the future in so far as he could.

The Government are not in a position to instruct the receiver, but Sir Kenneth has stated:

"Our objective will be to do everything possible, through a reconstruction of the business, to maintain in Belfast the operation to manufacture De Lorean motor cars."

That is also our wish and intention, but it will have to be through the injection of outside capital. That is why it is so important that nothing should be said to make Sir Kenneth's task more difficult.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the opening paragraph of his statement and his complimentary remarks about the workers have completely vindicated the previous Government's actions in taking steps that were so necessary to bring the company to Northern Ireland to redress the awful unemployment? Will the work force remain at its present level of 1, 500? Will the Secretary of State deny the statements in the United States that during the three years that the company has been in Northern Ireland it has been subjected to 1, 400 petrol bomb attacks, as that is a blatant untruth? Is he aware that all the people employed at the factory and living in the surrounding area wish to see the company continue with a work force of at least 1, 500 or double that number?

I entirely corroborate what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a travesty of the facts to say that the factory was subjected to the fire bomb attacks that were suggested. It is extremely damaging to future investment in Northern Ireland, where the vast majority of people go about their daily business in the same way as people in the rest of the United Kingdom. The company has not been subjected to the actions suggested. They may have been used as an excuse for past failures in some cases.

I am in a generous mood, but with the benefit of hindsight there might be doubt about whether the project was the right one. The trouble is that when one is desperate to attract industry, to get employment in Northern Ireland, one may tend to go for industries that require a degree of assistance and may not be in a strong position. It is a difficult balance to strike. I do not wish to score party points.

The continuation of the plant will depend on the receiver making satisfactory arrangements with one or other of the people negotiating with him. The level of the work force will be decided by that. But from all the information and reports it seems that it was far too ambitious so early on to talk of sales of 18, 000 to 20, 000 a year; 8, 500 to 9, 000 would have been much more realistic. The fundamental management mistake was last July when a second shift was brought in. With a complicated sports car on the American market, subject to all the competition, all that I have seen shows that considerable management and marketing mistakes were made in over-estimating the likely level of sales.

Since I received a particularly nasty letter from an official of the De Lorean Motor Company merely because I had raised in this House the matter of the expenditure of £15, 000 on Concorde travel for Mr. De Lorean and first-class air travel for the directors of the firm going to a meeting in New York—which the official dismissed as a mere pittance in relation to total investment—the Secretary of State's announcement should give a little hope to the punch-drunk Ulster industry. I was glad to hear his compliments about the skilled and hard-working work force in the factory.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the De Lorean Motor Company and the engineering industry in Northern Ireland, and all the other firms involved, will be treated no less favourably than BL in the Midlands has been treated? Will the Secretary of State also give an assurance that the companies in my constituency, and elsewhere in Northern Ireland, which are owed money by De Lorean, will be paid quickly, as their survival depends on the money coming to them?

Finally, will the Secretary of State ask one of the Japanese firms to consider taking over De Lorean?

I must make it absolutely plain that I can give no assurance about the position of creditors. It would be wrong if I in any way sought to do so. I am afraid that they have to take their risks and stand alongside other people in this unfortunate business.

With regard to firms in my hon. Friend's constituency and other firms in Northern Ireland being treated no less favourably than those in Great Britain, firms in Northern Ireland are treated considerably more favourably than firms anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I shall go on defending that policy, because it is absolutely necessary that they should be. We should not underestimate the enormous amount of aid that Great Britain is giving to Northern Ireland. My concern is to ensure that the money is spent as well as possible.

I join other hon. Members in welcoming the earlier part of the Minister's statement, in which he acknowledged the achievements of the work force at the Dunmurry plant. Whatever criticisms there may be of management—some may be justified but some are singularly unhelpful—the work force deserves credit for its great achievements. May I tell the Minister that we accept his unenviable decision as inevitable?

The Minister spoke of an annual production of about 8, 000 cars. I understand that within the trade it is felt that the company would be more likely to be successful with an annual production of 5, 500 or 6, 000 cars. That has to be appreciated if the plant is to survive.

Is the Minister satisfied about the future marketing arrangements in the United States? Will the marketing still have to go through one of Mr. De Lorean's own companies?

The hon. Gentleman's last point would be one for the receiver to investigate. Undoubtedly, one of the most unsatisfactory parts of the whole structure of the business has been the relationship between the American company and the Belfast company. Certainly the receiver will not be satisfied to go on with the present arrangements—at least, I imagine that he will not, judging by the report that he has produced to me.

With regard to the level of car production, the company is very unlikely to be profitable at the very low figure of 5, 500 to 6, 000 cars. That is another of the problems. Production will have to get up to about 8, 500 cars if the company is to stand any chance of washing its own face.

Will the Minister clarify the position concerning the 1, 100 workers who have already been made redundant and any people who will be made redundant in future? Everyone has praised the workers for their contribution, but will the Secretary of State accept that the company is not in a position to make redundancy payments to workers who have been made redundant through no fault of their own? Should not the Government be making a contribution in that direction?

Will the Minister explain a little more fully what sort of reconstruction is involved? Will the Northern Ireland Development Agency be involved in running the company with the receiver? Two of the agency's directors have been on the board. Does the Minister think that, for example, Mr. De Lorean, as a helpful gesture to build up confidence for the future, will be transferring the right to manufacture the car to the receiver or to the new company?

The hon. Gentleman's last point is a very important one. I must now leave it to the receiver. It is a point that the receiver will obviously have very much in mind. It is brought out in the confidential report that he has given to me.

The Employment Protection Act 1975 will cover those who have been made redundant. Redundancy payments will be made out of the redundancy payments fund to those who have already been made redundant and who up to now have not been paid redundancy money. Any further redundancies in a company which is in receivership will be treated in the same way.

The Northern Ireland Development Agency will have nothing further to do with the matter, for the simple reason that the receiver will have to set up a fresh company, and it will be the responsibility of the receiver to deal with that. Therefore, the NIDA arrangements will tend to fall by the wayside. I would not think that NIDA would have any further interest in the matter, other than the very considerable interest that we have in the property and in the working equipment, which is tied to the loans that we have made.

Those of us who have seen the factory and the men at work will feel particularly sad at this time. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the relief on the Conservative Benches that good money is not to be sent after bad? I admire the way in which my right hon. Friend has succeeded in directing funds to the relief of the distressed economy in Northern Ireland. Will he bear in mind—as I am sure he does—that future investment should be sound investment, as indicated by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. We need to look carefully at future investment, and to ensure that in any such future investment there Ls a larger input of private sector money to go alongside any money that is put in by the State. That is one of the lessons to be learnt. The other is that Northern Ireland has a very good work force, and we need to capitalise on it in every way that we can.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and the congratulations of the House on the moral courage that he has displayed and on his dignity in making this very unhappy statement to the House today? Will he consider the effect that it will have on my constituency of Dudley in the West Midlands, where several firms are sole suppliers to the De Lorean Motor Company?

In the difficult negotiations with the receiver, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to create an air of confidence, and the sort of environment in which risk capital could be invested in the company?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. One of the factors that I have had in mind is the number of small suppliers in the West Midlands, in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other places who, as things stand, are likely to be badly affected by the receivership.

It is important that a number of cars that are on their way to the United States, in the United States, or in the factory at Belfast, and which have not yet been sold, should be sold at the proper price. That is the way in which the creditors are likely to receive the biggest dividend. Therefore, in the interests of the creditors, nothing should be done to knock the car, let alone the future of the company. That is why it is so important that we should try to get off to a reasonable start.

Will the Secretary of State note that many of the small firms in this country, such as those in my constituency, have a large proportion of their production geared to the De Lorean company? While the reconstruction is taking place, will he have discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Industry and the Department of Employment to see what can be done to tide over the small firms until the position of the De Lorean company becomes clear?

That is something that I shall consider with my right hon. Friend, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Much will depend on how successful the receiver is in getting additional finance quickly into the new company. I shall discuss that with my colleagues.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, apart from the waivers on the interest that he has announced, that the receiver has not called on him or the Government for any assistance in any reconstruction of the company that might occur in future? Secondly, in view of the substantial sums granted every year to Northern Ireland, will he consider whether that money is used in the best way or whether a regime of tax concessions—especially corporation tax—might not provide a better service to the people of Northern Ireland? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that the large-scale support that he and the Government give to Northern Ireland shows beyond any doubt the commitment of the Government and people of this country to Northern Ireland? That should not be held in any doubt in any quarters.

Everything shows that the people of Great Britain are prepared to do all that they can to help Northern Ireland and its people through a difficult period. I confirm that and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's final remarks.

Tax concessions I have under review and the manner in which money to help with investment is given to Northern Ireland. Many problems will be presented if we seek to go a different way in Northern Ireland from that which we follow in the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the attractions of my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it would bring us more into line with the Republic, which has been more successful until recently in attracting investment.

I confirm that there is no question of any further money or assurances being given by the Government to the De Lorean project, and that the only change we have made relates to the bond over the American company. Charges over the Belfast company remain exactly as they are and, of course, our royalties from the sale of each car remains as they are.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his last sentences rather upset what we would otherwise have regarded as a very sensitive and realistic approach to this most difficult question? He has in Sir Kenneth Cork and Paul Shewell two of the most able receivers in the business. They have made a clear statement with a view to reconstructing the company.

I urge the right hon. Gentleman at this stage not to rule out any further possible Government aid under a new scheme. He made a precise statement concerning the De Lorean project. It may be possible, via ECGD, the Northern Ireland Development Board or even through the Government to provide further aid on a realistic new project, and I urge him to keep an open mind. It is silly in Government ever to rule anything out beforehand.

Will those who have been made redundant in Northern Ireland qualify under the Employment Protection Act? Can the right hon Gentleman give precise figures on that aspect? Lastly, I am sure that he is aware of the serious situation of the Unbrako factory in Coventry. Can he assure me that he has not ruled out Government help there? Is he aware that any Government help to tide the firm over a difficult financial period would be most welcome?

Redundancies are covered by the Employment Protection Act. However, the additional problem is that the company did not give 90 days notice, as it was required to do under that Act. That matter must go to an industrial tribunal and I believe that the unions have already made application. As I understand it-1 shall have to refresh my mind—if the industrial tribunal rules against the company and the company is in receivership, payments still come out of the redundancy payments fund.

The hon. Gentleman urges me to keep an open mind about the future of the company. I must make it clear that both the Labour and Tory Governments have done everything in their power to help De Lorean. It would be wrong, and certainly not in the interests of the receiver in trying to attract new money, if there were any suggestion that further Government money would be made available to it the company. I must keep to that point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic and political progress and improvement of the security situation in Northern Ireland are indivisible and, for that reason, the location of the De Lorean plant alone justifies special measures being taken and might indeed justify special measures in the future? Does he agree that it is unrealistic for anyone to think that prosperity will bloom in Northern Ireland without continued strong Government support?

I am grateful for every remark made by my hon. Friend. That is very much the message I am trying to get across.

While one can be sure that Coopers and Lybrand have done work of their usual high standard, it seems an extraordinary anomaly that the Comptroller and Auditor General of the United Kingdom seems to have no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland and that this Parliament never decided that he should not have such jurisdiction. Will the Secretary of State and the Treasury consider that very odd circumstance?

The hon. Gentleman raised that point with me on a former occasion and I am having some inquiries made because it is an aspect that is completely new to me.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the guarantees apparently surrendered? What were these guarantees? Why have they been surrendered? Is my right hon. Friend absolutely sure that those guarantees are presently valueless?

That was an overall guarantee given by the United States company—De Lorean Motor Cars—to the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Development Agency for the loans they made to De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. in Belfast. Mr. De Lorean said that he was prepared to invest $5 million to keep the New York company solvent. However, of course, he was not prepared to put that money in if on the first occasion, as soon as the money was put in, we whipped it out to cover the guarantee for the Belfast company.

Because the report in front of us shows that without that $5 million injection the New York company would become insolvent in a big manner and that we would therefore have been unlikely to get anything out of the company, it seemed to us that the benefits that the receiver said he needed to keep the marketing going in the United States, justified that action. I am satisfied that it in no way restricts the right we have on loans over the assets of the De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. of Belfast.

rose——

Order. I shall call other hon. Members, but I hope that they will bear in mind the Private Member's Bill that is being debated.

While my right hon. Friend obviously has had to make a very sad statement and while I agree with him that all the money so far invested was invested with the best of intentions, perhaps my right hon. Friend could help those such as the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who ask for more direct Government investment in industry if he told us how much Government money has already gone for each job year provided by De Lorean.

I cannot do it in terms of job-years, but the amount of money Governments have altogether put into De Lorean is just over £79 million. Of course, part of that sum was in employment subsidies, industrial and regional grants, the original share capital, part on a loan, and a £10 million loan was a guarantee to the bank.

At its peak, De Lorean employed 2, 600 people. If one divides 2, 600 into £80 million, one gets a figure of approximately £32, 000 per job. Of course, that is spread over a period.

Why not divide it by 7, 000?

The right hon. Gentleman quickly reminds me. Those were the direct jobs. A great many indirect jobs also resulted from the operation.

Is my right hon. Friend heartened by the general feeling in the House of support for Northern Ireland and by the extraordinary agreement on both sides of the House that the solution to this tragic problem is not to throw even more public money at it? Does this show that the Government's economic message is beginning to get across, and is not that a most encouraging sign?

I am always heartened by cross-party agreement when dealing with such a sensitive and difficult issue as the future of Northern Ireland and our desire to bring peace, prosperity and employment to such a troubled country.

(Brighouse and Spenborough): Will my right hon. Friend accept my appreciation for the realistic attitude that he has adopted in view of the state of the market in the United States for De Lorean cars? Will he also accept my appreciation of his efforts to save the jobs of workers in Northern Ireland and those who are employed by component manufacturers in this country? Is he aware that for component manufacturers there is a disproportionate effect because of the specialised nature of the product that has been specified by De Lorean? Will he accept my good wishes for any encouragement that he is able to give with the reconstruction and future of the company?

We have in Sir Kenneth Cork a man who understands Northern Ireland and who is keen to help in every way that he can. He is firmly of the mind that there is a future for the company at a reduced level. He wants to see it prosper and he has taken on board the effect on component manufacturers in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies. I should be wrong to be too optimistic about the outcome. We have many difficulties ahead of us. However, the response of the House this morning has shown me that there is more good will over trying to reach a sensible position than one might have thought over the past few weeks.

At some time in our childhood or in our adulthood we have probably all been terrified by a dog that has not been under control. As politicians the most fearful experience that we can have during canvassing in an election is suddenly to find a huge dog hurling itself towards us from the back of a house: or from somewhere else. As a dog lover, I put that down to a difference in political views between the dog and myself.

All the dogs are Tories.

They are usually intelligent, so I would not categorise them as Tories entirely. However, it is a frightening experience. It is even more worrying when packs of dogs are running wild. This sometimes occurs on school playing fields. It takes only one small incident to set off one of those dogs, or several of them, and the result is injury to a child, or a number of children.

It is society's duty to protect the public from the dog owners who should be responsible for them. Every dog lover is appalled by the cruelty that is involved in buy [rig pups at Christmas time only for them to be jettisoned on motorways throughout the country or thrown out to fend for themselves. In controlling dogs we are acting as much in the animal's interest as in the person's interest.

A much more serious issue is the control of rabies. Governments of both parties have taken far too casual an attitude to the potential danger. It is only a matter of time before rabies spreads to the United Kingdom. Since the war it has spread from Poland to the Channel. It is a serious issue that must be considered at Government level.

Having accepted the need to control dogs, we must accept that it is the irresponsible owner that we must control primarily and not the stray dog. The feature about the Bill that worries me is that it seems that the cost of looking after and controlling dogs is being placed more and more on the responsible owner who will look after his dog in any event. It is a fairly responsible owner who buys a licence in the first place.

My second worry stems from the idea of leaving licensing to local authorities. That will lead to differential rates between authorities. For various reasons certain authorities may want to use the dog licence to deter dog ownership and not to control dogs. That will work against both irresponsible and responsible owners.

It appears that we are being asked to consider a self-financing scheme. Often those who need dogs are the old, those who live alone and those who are not especially well off. Financial control will act against those of limited financial means. That does not apply only to old-age pensioners. The dog licence should be centrally imposed and centrally administered. It might be sensible to increase the cost of the licence, but we must consider the effect on those who need dogs. Although we may be able to identify dogs and to license them, we are not able to deal with vandals in the same way. Many of the older people in my constituency wish to keep dogs because they fear the muggings and the attacks from which society is unable to protect them.

When we talk about financial means of control, we must remember that there are many who like dogs and want dogs. If dog wardens are to be given powers to deal with dogs that foul footpaths, society must provide places for owners to exercise their dogs. In some parks or playing fields the danger comes not only from dogs, but from horses and so on. Given that some control may be necessary, we must look at the other side of the coin. We all agree that there is a need to control dogs. However, control must be imposed in particular on unscrupulous dealers who sell dogs for a profit.

Generally, I support the Bill. I have some reservations and I have mentioned them to the House. However, before supporting the Bill in the Lobby, I should like those points to be clarified.

My pedigree as a dog lover is well established. Even my car is called Rover. The breed lasts well, although it has been somewhat thinned over the years. I even come from the only constituency to have founded a breed of dogs, the Jack Russell. They were founded by the Rev. Jack Russell, vicar of Swimbridge, near Barnstaple. My family has always favoured wire fox terriers. Indeed, in relation to the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young), I should point out that my late mother—who kept wire fox terriers all her life—was never bothered by burglars, nor, for that matter, by postmen or milkmen.

A dog can be a guard or companion, but it can also be a nuisance to other members of the community. We must strike a balance between the absolute freedom to own and love a pet and the absolute obligation to the rest of the community, who may not love and honour the pet in the same way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) has produced a modest Bill. It should have been much more comprehensive, and I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) when she said that we needed a larger and more detailed Bill. I suspect that this Bill was proposed in the hope that it would have more success, but I fear that even this modest aspiration may not be realised.

Misconceptions about dogs abound. To town dwellers, "sheep worrying" conjures up something like the hound of the Baskervilles, tearing the throat out of a ewe. However, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, more damage is done by sheep worrying in which a tooth or paw is never laid on the beast. In our part of the world sheep are often worried by a pet poodle belonging to someone from Putney or Pudsey that escapes from the car and finds big woolly creatures, which we know as sheep and which jump and run and are fun to chase. That is why we need regulations. I entirely support the National Farmers Union. We cannot allow a metropolitan regulation of dogs, which may clean our footpaths but does not save the countryside. Indeed, the NFU thinks in much higher figures than those quoted earlier. It thinks that there may have been about 100, 000 instances in which animals have been chivvied and chased, although not necessarily killed. At this time of the year the abortion rate among breeding ewes can be economically frightening, and, in addition, the blizzards of recent months may have weakened the breeding stock.

The Bill is modest and I regret that on its way to proclaim its modesty it is covered with more and more clothes and is less exposed to detail and fact. I regret that it does not cover working dogs. Exeter and Leamington Spa are the two main centres for guide dog training. It is well known that guide dogs cannot be used until they are well over the six-month age limit, at which a licence is needed. A dog is selected, trained, walked and then finally trained. In Committee, we must make allowance for guide dogs throughout their existence. In addition, there have always been agricultural exemptions for working dogs and these must be maintained.

It is illogical to expect those who show and breed animals to share in individual licensing. Given the movement in the dog population, we shall end up with something like the vehicle registration centre at Swansea several months or a year behind with the transfer of top breed dogs that are moved from owner to owner. Therefore, we must consider a measure that is a little wider than at present. In my part of the country hunt kennels form an important part of the community. We get a far bigger turnout at the local hunt than at the local football match and the sport is usually better. There is no doubt that kennels and breeders must also be given exemption from individual licensing.

It may seem strange to pass from Exmoor and sheep breeding to urban streets, but I should like to quote from someone who played an important part in my formative years. Christopher Robin said:

"Whenever I walk in a London street, I'm ever so careful to watch my feet."

I seem to remember that Christopher Robin was afraid of bears and of stepping on the lines, but I walk the streets near my London flat and unless I am careful my shoes become fouled. My constituency is both agricultural and seaside. I am well aware that if one child is fouled by dog dirt that may be the last time that the family will visit a seaside resort.

If the Government are not enthusiastic about the Bill they should bear in mind that electors are. Our postbags are full of complaints about the lack of control, dogs that chase sheep and so on. Everything that hon. Members have said is mentioned by constituents in their letters and those letters fill the postbags of all hon. Members. It would be an unwise Government who were seen to be against sensible and modest legislation.

The Bill places the power where it should logically lie, not at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said, has the power to specify the licence fee but with the local district council. The council should decide what form of service it needs and should then levy a fee that will cover it without subsidising the rate or being subsidised by it.

rose——

I shall not give way as I have a great fear of giving way to barristers even when they are on a free loan service.

The Bill does not say whether the service should be full or part time. Indeed, there is no reason why it should. In rural areas such as mine, a good service could be run at a reasonable price, using a part-time warden service. In a metropolitan area, the needs would be different. This measure merely asks local authorities to take over the service. There are many odd byelaws—I use the word "odd" advisedly, because too many separate measures affect the dog community—and it is time that they were cleared up and consolidated in one piece of legislation.

When we discussed the drafts of the Bill at great length, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and I realised that it was impossible for Back-Bench Members to enact such legislation. However, it would be a great shame if even this small measure did not succeed.

It is inevitable that a dog or a cat or other pet rushing across the road causes braking, swerving, accidents and damage. We do not try to legislate for the cat. Perhaps we should legislate for all household pets that have access to thoroughfares, but it is more likely that dogs will cause such accidents. Therefore, this measure will mop up the stray dog which may or may not attack sheep, but are likely to distract the motorist.

Those of us whose refuse is collected in black, normally torn, plastic sacks are well aware that the tears are usually caused by stray dogs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, this may also be caused in part by the increasing fox population in urban areas. They probably come to the urban areas because they know their fate if they stay in rural areas. When we talk about the problems of refuse collection, we must include all the factors, such as the stray dog and the careless owner. If the owner is not careful he should be liable but if the owner cannot be traced he cannot be made liable. However, the State also has a responsibility. If the owner has paid a fair and reasonable licence fee, it is sensible and logical that the dog-catching service should look for his pet if it has escaped or gone astray, as can happen when a dog is in season, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said earlier.

Much legislation is forced upon local authorities which, in effect, say "You ask us to cut our coat and then you take away more and more of the cloth". However, the House will be interested to learn that the Devon Association of Parish Councils wrote to me asking me to support the Bill. The administrative secretary said:

"On the Association's behalf, therefore, and after consultation with the Chairman, I am writing to urge you to support the Dogs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill".

The district councils will have to do the work but cannot make a profit from it. The Devon county branch of the Association of District Councils wrote to me and said:

"I therefore seek your support for the second reading…which is due to take place this Friday…This Bill, whilst not perfect, goes a long way to meeting two objectives:—To remove the anomaly of a dog licence fee which costs three times as much to collect as it raises in revenue".

That fact was confirmed in the volume of Hansard published this morning. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), the Treasury claimed that the collection cost was £3 million while the revenue was £1 million. The second point made by the association was that the Bill should

"place responsibility for dogs with local authorities with explicit powers to run dog warden schemes."

I could not possibly go through the vast range of answers that we received from a series of questions published in my local newspaper, the North Devon Journal-Herald. We asked those questions, not just so that the public could say "I suppose so" but so that they could make their own proposals. The questions were fairly simple, and the answers that I give were from the North Devon public. More than 400 people answered in one week.

The first question was whether the fee should be abolished, and 10 per cent. said "Yes". When asked whether it should be increased to £5, 45 per cent. said "Yes". When asked whether it should be more than £5 and asked to state their own figures, 45 per cent. again said "Yes". My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood told us how many households have dogs, so it is interesting that 90 per cent. of those who answered believed that £5 was the minimum. The person who suggested a fee of £1, 000 was perhaps being rather extreme.

The second question was whether the fee should cover one dog, two dogs or as many as the family own. Eighty-five per cent. believed that it should cover one dog, 5 per cent. believed that it should cover two dogs and 10 per cent. believed that it should cover as many dogs as the family owned.

The third question asked whether there should be a reduced rate for pensioners. That matter is not covered in the Bill. Thirty per cent. believed that there should be a reduced rate for all pensioners and a further 40 per cent. for pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefit. Only 30 per cent. believed that there should be a reduced rate for working dogs only but, not surprisingly in our part of the country, 70 per cent. also required reduced rates for pet shops, kennels, breeders and hunts.

In answer to the sixth question, 98 per cent. said that the dog warden scheme should give powers to the warden to require a person whose dog has fouled the pavement to clean it up on the spot. Many people wrote to say that if it happens with one's child one cleans up behind it. That should also apply to pets.

The seventh question asked whether a dog pound should be established, and 99 per cent. said "Yes". Asked whether there should be a dog tag, 90 per cent. said that there should be a colour-coded tag and 10 per cent. preferred some form of paper licence.

I do not suggest that any poll, be it Gallup or otherwise, is perfect—although some are better than others these days—but it seems that this poll expresses a standard viewpoint. Legislation is required. It is not hostile to the animal, but is in favour of the controlled pet. I take the greatest pleasure in sponsoring my hon. Friend's Bill. Those who might try to oppose it should beware the reaction of hon. Members. No one who has spoken today has opposed the Bill. One wonders whether on the tombstones of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will be written "Talked out before his time."

The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), whose speech was very entertaining. Like him, I support the Bill, or at least its broad intentions. I have more criticism to offer than the hon. Gentleman. I notice that the letter to which he referred from the Association of District Councils accepted that the Bill was imperfect. The hon. Gentleman did not provide the House with evidence of those imperfections.

The hon. Gentleman referred to polls. If one polled people who do not smoke, asking them what they thought about tobacco taxation, they would demand that it should be increased. Those who do not drink would feel that it was appropriate greatly to increase the duty on alcoholic beverages. Those who do not keep dogs would be in favour of substantial increases in dog licence fees. We are not yet near a system in which people name their levels of income tax. If they did, they would pitch it lower than the Chancellor of the Exchequer might feel was desirable. Therefore, we must treat some of those polls with a pinch of salt. I accept that the hon. Gentleman put the point forward in a more lighthearted spirit than my earlier comments may have suggested.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) for introducing the Bill, which I hope will reach the statute book. He knows that I want it to be in a different form when it is enacted.

The speech made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) led me to believe that it might be highly desirable for the Government to resist changes for a reasonable period in order to allow them to have the experience of the wrath of the hon. Lady. I see that the Minister of State is expressing some interest in that suggestion.

The hon. Lady's speech was made against a background of considerable experience, as was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). People should pay attention to those speeches. I am convinced that the hon. Member for Kingswood did so. I hope that the Government Departments did. I am afraid that the Government are seeking to use the hon. Member for Kingswood to get out from under the responsibility that they should have in the matter. I trust that they will not place the hon. Gentleman in such a difficult position that the Bill he has bravely tackled is imperilled because the Government are trying to drive too hard a bargain. If the Government do so, they will risk the wrath not merely of those interested in dogs but of those who wish to see legislative advance in that area.

The Bill should be a Government Bill and it ought to be comprehensive measure. In it there is a reference to the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. A measure dealing with that law is needed. I assisted my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) in getting that Bill through the House in 1973. He introduced it because of the dreadful conditions in what were then called puppy factories, as reported by the media. Disgraceful stories were told. My right hon. Friend decided that a Private Member's Bill was necessary. It went through the House with all-party support.

I was talking to my right hon. Friend about the Bill the other day. He accepts, as do most dog breeders, that the Bill has proved deficient. It has been harder on reputable breeders than on disreputable people, against whom the Bill was aimed. That deficiency is not my right hon. Friend's fault. He pioneered a new step towards decency.

The Government are well aware that that Act of Parliament does not do what was intended. It would have been desirable to have a more comprehensive Bill, which would have covered the points that the hon. Member for Kingswood is seeking to cover. The hon. Gentleman recognises, and the Minister is probably aware, that it would be a fortunate Back Bencher who could take through the House a Bill of the size that such a comprehensive measure would entail. I recall taking through the House what became the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. That was a substantial job. I was fortunate to have the co-operation of both sides of the House and particularly of the Department of the Environment. Without that help, a Bill of such size would have had no chance of enactment.

The hon. Member for Kingswood is to be congratulated on taking on a responsibility that the Government have regrettably shirked. I accept that the Labour Government could have had a go. The working party report had become available. However, hon. Members who served at that time will know that the Government, in a minority situation, would not have had a hope of getting the measure through the House. I acquit those Conservative Members present of any charge of malicious mischief-making. They would have played no part in such activity, certainly not the hon. Member for Drake. However, with a Labour Government who did not possess a majority, any Bill would have been stultified by the talking out tricks of Conservative Members. I hope that no Conservative Member will seek to talk out this Bill. It is an important measure.

I hope that some changes will be considered and perhaps made to the Bill. I do not take the view that local authorities should determine the licensing. I am not aware of the wishes of my own local authority in this matter. I know only that it has been placed in the most appalling position in the last year. This is an issue to which I have already referred in the House this week and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) also drew attention. My local authority has sought to comply with the Government's instructions. We have pitched our spending within the Government's guidelines. As a consequence, we have suffered an enormous cut in provision for the year 1982–83.

Local authorities could find themselves placed in a situation, as a result of Government policy, whereby they had no alternative but to seek to use the licence arrangements to raise money to meet some other essential service costs rather than the dog warden scheme.

The Government should not dodge their responsibilities. They should fix a licence fee. The burden should not be placed on the hon. Member for Kingswood. The National Farmers Union has suggested a minimum fee. The least that the Home office can do, I suggest, is to propose that there should be a maximum. This will enable people interested in dogs to maintain that interest without being priced out of the market.

People who keep more than one dog usually care for them better than people who have only one dog. Clause 3(4) needs, therefore, to be reconsidered. I see no reason why people who keep a few dogs for purposes of exhibition, obedience competitions and such activities should have to pay the cost of several licences. People who keep dogs for obedience competitions do not create a problem. I see no reason why they should subscribe several times over to the system proposed in the Bill.

At one time, I gained considerable pleasure from exhibiting dogs. Unfortunately, as hon. Members will appreciate, anyone entering these portals has remarkably little leisure time. The pressure of constituency engagements meant that I had to call it a day. I still meet, however, many people engaged in the dog fancy. They have a part to play in promoting the better use and better keeping of dogs. There might be benefits if the Government spent some money offering inducements, encouragement and advice to enable people to learn more about the responsibilities that dog owners should properly accept.

There are many dog fanciers in this country. For example, there are 1, 750 canine societies and 600 dog training clubs. So there are many organisations, and they have tens of thousands of members. I suggest to the hon. Member—and, perhaps, to the Minister, who may appreciate the point—that if the Government insist on the hon. gentleman sticking to these arrangements, it is possible that the normally quiescent dog fanciers will suddenly wake up to what is being threatened. We could find ourselves subjected to an astonishingly large lobby.

Every Labour Member who has spoken has expressed a measure of agreement with what I have said. So if there is a lobby from the dog fraternity, it will be properly aimed at members of the Government and those Conservative Back Benchers who endorse the view of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). There should be a maximum fee, and there should be a contribution from the relevant Government Department, at least in the sense of accepting responsibility. If that responsibility is not accepted, hon. Members will be creating a great deal of work for themselves because people in all constituencies who are normally busy enjoying dog shows and training or walking their dogs, may find time to visit their Members' surgeries or write a series of letters to them. Because that has never happened before it does not mean that it is unlikely to happen during the next few months. We await with interest the Minister's comments, and I hope that they will accommodate some of the suggestions that have been made.

There are 4 or 5 million dogs in this country, which may be too many. We hear that many of them are unlicensed. However, the people who will pay the licence fee of £5, £10 or £20 or whatever it happens to be, are those who pay the licence now. The people who complain about dogs on beaches or of dogs chasing sheep probably accept that the majority of those dogs are among the substantial number that are not covered by a licence now. I hope that neither the Government nor the hon. Member for Kingswood will create a situation in which the just are required to pay for the sins of the unjust.

The dog warden service has much to offer. Parish councils in my constituency have had experience of such a service and view the idea with approval. The warden should be not merely a kind of canine pound keeper, but someone who can give advice, and work with the canine organisations that I have mentioned. I suggest, too, that the umbrella organisation of dog fanciers in this country, the Kennel Club, could make a substantial contribution. Its chief executive told me that 54 per cent. of dogs in Britain today are pedigree, and that the club is developing a substantial computer capability and already has a data base of 21/4 million dogs. So it would be possible to establish a breeders' register, which would help in the development of a proper service and proper arrangements for the regulation and keeping of dogs.

I do not wish to say much more, and I have no intention of talking the Bill out. There are important matters that need to be raised in relation to the Bill.—[interruption]I suggest that I have raised to relieve the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) of any obligation to intervene. This is a worthy Bill, and its intentions are excellent. If the hon. Member continues to interrupt throughout the debate, he will pose a threat to a Bill that has good intentions. but that needs certain revisions.

I do not wish the National Farmers Union to think that we dismiss its view. I hope that the existing exemption for collies and cattle dogs will be maintained in the Bill. When I speak about cattle-herding dogs I do not suggest that the Royal Family's corgis should be exempt.

I trust that the requirement to wear a label or a collar with a tag will not apply within the precincts or curtilage of a place where dogs are shown or compete in obedience competitions. The hon. Member for Devon, North referred to wire-haired fox terriers. I do not particularly like that breed. Larger dogs tend to be quieter and far better with children.

I wish to ensure that people who keep dogs, who are genuinely interested in dogs and want them to be kept properly are not discouraged by the Bill. I hope that they will be reassured that the proposals are designed to promote decency in arrangements and to discourage the fraud, the crook and the irresponsible and that they will offer no deterrent to the proper leisure activity with, and to the good management of, dogs.

I support the Bill but I also wish to help my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) with his Restrictive Trade Practices (Amendment) Bill. For that reason I shall be brief.

I agree that there is a need for more comprehensive legislation on dogs. There is nothing new about that. Things change, but they remain the same. I am reminded of that by Hansard in 1867 when the House of Commons was considering a report

"upon the capability for settlement and the best means of settling Her Majesty's Territory lying between Lake Superior and the Pacific".

That is part of Canada. On Wednesday we discussed Canada.

Back in 1867, in response to a question, a Minister was in Hansard reported as saying:

"It had been the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to make regulations with regard to dogs running about the streets without their owners, but the state of public business has made it impossible to do so with any chance of its being passed."

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) accuses the previous Government of lethargy and lack of activity in relation to legislation on dogs. There is nothing new in that. It was happening in 1867 and has happened ever since.

My qualification for speaking in this brief debate is that I like dogs. At the risk of sounding like Romulus or Remus, I must tell the House that I grew up with a dog. I regret that the exigencies of life and moving around as we must, prevent me from having a dog now. It would not be fair on the dog, but I like dogs. I respect and understand the companionship and affection that dogs can bring to a family. They are of great benefit to the elderly and people who live alone.

The Bill concentrates on dogs that do not have responsible owners. It sets up a mechanism to deal with that problem. I shall concentrate on dogs with responsible owners, particularly in urban areas. Dogs can not only be a cause of great companionship and affection but a cause of nuisance. They can foul the streets, verges and beaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, (Mr. Aspinwall) is courageous to the Bill because nothing enlarges the postbag so much as any comment about dogs. If one comments one is assumed to be an enemy of dogs. I disclaim that.

Legislation could be changed to make life better for the responsible dog owner and to enable local authorities to facilitate better arrangements for dogs and their natural functions.

In 1977 I introduced the Dogs (Control of Nuisances) Bill. It received only a First Reading, and I did not pursue it further. It contained a number of detailed measures to enable local authorities to regulate areas of public space used by dogs. As the title of the current Bill involves miscellaneous provisions, it is in order for me to draw attention to the various measures that my research unearthed at that time. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood this is the first opportunity for many years to discuss dogs, and I shall take advantage of it and refer to my proposed measures.

Where a local authority controls common land, the antiquity of the law on common land prevents the authority from fencing off that land because, by definition, it is common and for the use of all. In my Bill in 1977 I proposed that local authorities be given special authorisation by Act of Parliament, in conformity with section 194(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925, to permit enclosures to be made on commons as defined in the Commons Act 1876. The purpose was to provide special areas for the use of dogs. The newspapers, of course, grabbed hold of that proposal and suggested that the areas would be "doggy loos". I prefer to regard them as special areas which the public can see are intended for the exercise and use of dogs rather than for use by children and the public.

I suggested further that local authorities should be given power to designate verges on roads and footways part of those roads and footways, so that, if it wished, a local authority could designate a verge and by law prevent dogs from fouling the verges and footways. At present, a local authority can make it an offence for a dog to foul the road and footway but not certain verges.

I urge local authorities to provide special facilities for dogs. This is a serious problem in the urban environment. Advertisements for animal food show dogs bounding across open spaces with lots of grass and air. That is often not the case. Responsible owners do not know where to take their dogs for them to exercise their natural functions. Local authorities should be encouraged to provide special areas for the purpose.

In 1977 I also proposed a change in the law affecting the evidence produced to establish whether a person was in charge of a dog at the time of an alleged offence of fouling an area contrary to the byelaws. Evidence might be produced to show that the dog was under the habitual control and in the registered ownership of an individual, I suggested that this should be accepted as evidence, although not conclusive evidence, that the person in charge of the dog should have been exercising better control and, prima facie, was responsible for the dog fouling the area.

Those modest measures are purely enabling measures, to give more power to local authorities. I accept that they will not change the urban environment completely, but they will enable local authorities to exercise slightly more control over a nuisance that is causing great concern to a number of people who live in areas where there is insufficient open space for dogs.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the House will bear these measures in mind and that, before too long, a Government will have the courage to accept the need for more comprehensive legislation on dogs. When that happens, I hope to be here to support the legislation.

I hope that nobody will try to talk the Bill out. I promise that I shall be brief to try to ensure that the Bill receives a Second Reading.

Like other Labour Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on introducing the Bill. The need for legislation on this issue has been ably stressed by the hon. Member and I shall support the Bill as a dog lover—incidentally a Jack Russell dog lover—and give support to the measure. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on his attempt to do something on the matter and his remarks today.

I also compliment the research department of the House of Commons Library on the excellent document which it produced on the control of dogs which was published on 19 March 1981. It gives most of the information that hon. Members need when we discuss a subject such as the one we are discussing today.

In all probability the threat of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) to the Government will send chills down the spine of the Prime Minister. No doubt we shall hear a prepared statement from the Government Front Bench later saying that we have the blessing of the Cabinet.

In his 32-minute presentation of the Bill, the hon. Member for Kingswood covered most of the problems brought to the notice of hon. Members and to my notice by my local council. The legal dignitaries here today must be afforded their interventions to prove how essential they are to any and all Bills, whether good, bad or indifferent. I hope that the complexities of the issues raised can be overcome because it is essential to ensure that the Bill, suitably amended, becomes law.

For a number of years my borough council has tried to implement a dog warden scheme. It has difficulties, which have been increased in the past few years, because of financial stringency. However, only recently it decided to implement a dog warden scheme. It has a further difficulty which is that in the open borough area there are 19 community councils and four town councils. Each and every community council would like to have a dog warden but in some of the areas and some of the community councils there is no real necessity for one because they do not have a stray dog problem. Therefore, it is essential that the local authorities should use some discretion.

I very much doubt whether they would be able to introduce a scheme whereby dog wardens could cover the whole of the 95 square miles of the Ogmore constituency adequately enough to ensure that what is necessary, and contained in the Bill, could operate efficiently and successfully within the borough. However, they welcome the Bill and have asked me to come here this morning to support it, as I do. I assure the hon. Member for Kingswood that the Bill will receive my support and that of many of my hon. Friends.

There is one danger with dog wardens similar to that which we have with traffic wardens. I hope that they will be selected for their commitment to animal welfare and not, like some traffic wardens whom I have met, for being anti-social.

I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on introducing an admirable Bill. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I shall be brief to ensure that it receives a Second Reading.

It will be a comfort to hon. Members who may not follow such matters closely to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) is also a sponsor of the Bill. We all know of her work for animal welfare. Her sponsorship should be more than sufficient assurance that the Bill will ensure the welfare of animals, whatever else it may do.

I was contacted by the Watford borough council environmental health department, which is concerned about such matters and welcomes the Bill. I contacted the Association of District Councils, which, with some reservations, also wished the Bill to have a Second Reading.

The need for the Bill is well known. At least 5, 000 farm animals a year are injured or killed by stray dogs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said, the National Farmers Union would say that the number was considerably higher. There are approximately 12 road deaths a year resulting from the straying of dogs and nearly 2, 000 road accidents. People are bitten daily and footpaths are fouled, with the consequent risk of disease. It is estimated that 50 per cent. of the dogs in the country are not licensed. The interdepartmental working party estimated that nearly 200, 000 stray dogs roam around. It cannot be disputed that we have a serious problem.

My hon. Friend may be aware of the pioneering work of Professor Woodruff at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He points out that about 50 children a year may suffer damage leading to the loss of sight in one eye as a result of toxocara canis, which is abundant in our parks. If anyone believes that that is not valid evidence, let me say that one of my children is blind in one eye as a result of that dreadful disease.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has already attempted to introduce a Bill on the matter. It is regrettable that such an important measure has to he introduced under the hit-and-miss procedure of private Members' legislation.

One of the main attractions of the Bill is that it transfers responsibility for dogs from the police to local authorities. Only this week the Home Secretary was besieged on all sides, particularly from the Conservative Benches, by hon. Members asking that the police should be more robust and active in the control of law and order. We should do all that we can to assist the police in their prime function of law enforcement. Our police forces should not have to chase stray dogs to put them into kennels.

Many members of the public will ask themselves why, after such an important report produced by the joint working party, nothing has been done. When the working party's report was introduced, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said:

"No new manpower or other new resources can be made available in the economic circumstances".

I am sure that at that time many people said "We have heard that before". I regret to say that we were to hear it again very recently from the mouth of this Government, when my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said that the Government would consider the report in the context of the current constraints on public expenditure.

Part of the excellent briefing that the Association of District Councils has put out on the matter contains correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in which again the Government have stated their position.

Labour and Conservative Governments have accepted the report and have held out little hope of doing anything about it. That is a matter of great regret. Therefore, the Bill is not only needed but overdue.

I should like to tell the House what my own borough council has done and is doing, the sort of difficulties that it is facing, and why it would strongly support the Bill.

Watford borough council appointed a dog warden in June 1981. I spoke to the council about the matter this week and was given an outline of the sorts of tasks and duties that the dog warden performs in any given month. January was taken as a typical month. In that month, 23 complaints were received by the borough council concerning stray dogs. The warden was unable to catch 11 of them, seven were picked up and identified, and five were taken to kennels by the police.

I know that the recommendation is that there should be one dog warden for 50, 000 people. Has the Watford council achieved that ratio? Does it think that its ratio is a proper one?

The borough of Watford has a population of about 80, 000 and it has one dog warden. To that extent, the dog warden is coping with a population slightly larger than the one recommended by the working party. His appointment was in June 1981 and he is due to give a report at the end of this year to the environmental health department on the work that he has been doing. The borough council will then be able to make an assessment of it. The council has already told me that it regards the work as useful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Drake will be pleased to know that the post of dog warden in Watford was set up initially on a low key basis, so that he would not in any way be regarded as a dog catcher. Some of his work involves going to schools and talking to children about pet care. That is an important aspect of the work in which we should like to see dog wardens involved. Nevertheless—this is one of the problems to which the Bill addresses itself—the cost of the dog warden service to the Watford borough council is £9, 000 per annum.

The number of dogs at present registered in the borough is approximately 4, 000, and the income that the borough receives from the licence fees is £1, 800. The House will appreciate—I am sure that other hon. Members will know of district councils in a similar position—that at a time when the Government are properly asking local authorities to restrain their expenditure there is not much incentive for local authorities to embark on dog warden schemes, with all the attendent costs and administration, if the cost is in no way covered by the licence fees. I regret that my hon. Friend's Bill does not contain any provision to increase the fee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has said that he would be prepared to consider amendments on these points in Committee. This leads me to the main objections that the Association of District Councils and the National Farmers Union have to the Bill. My hon. Friend has said that he would certainly consider amendments to exempt farm and working dogs which are attending sheep and cattle. That is very important. I hope that he would also be prepared to consider an exemption for hounds under 12 months not entered in packs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North said, this is a measure of fundamental interest to urban constituencies which, of course, is why I support it so strongly. There is an important rural interest and I hope that we shall not overlook it in Committee.

The Association of District Councils has repeatedly argued for the implementation of the working party report. It believes that the report is right, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said, and that the responsibility for the licence fee and its fixing at £5 should be taken over by Government. I believe that there is a strong case for allowing local authorities to fix licence fees simply because prevailing conditions in local authorities vary. The hon. Member for Ogmore told us about some of his local authority's difficulties. The Watford borough council's problems will be very different from those faced by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North. Again, that aspect ought to be discussed in Committee.

I am concerned, as is the Association for District Councils, that the Bill as drafted imposes a specific obligation on local authorities to employ wardens. I should be happier if local authorities were allowed to take their own decisions about such matters. We should suggest that local authorities exercise their own discretion in areas such as this.

My hon. Friend will find from examining the Bill that local authorities are not obliged to employ dog wardens; they may do so.

I accept that.

I much regret that an important measure of this sort has not been brought forward by the previous or present Administration. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the welcomes the Bill and that, when in Committee, he will bring forward amendments to extend its scope and to improve it.

I think that it would be convenient for the House at this stage if I gave the official Opposition's view on the Bill. First, I congratulate the hon, Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on having the courage to advance this piece of suggested legislation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know the controversial nature, in a country such as ours, of any legislation dealing with animals.

I well remember having some correspondence a few years ago with my local authority about the need to establish a dog warden service within and around my constituency. I assure the hon. Member for Kingswood that I received a shoal of letters accusing me of being everything from a "rabid"—if that is the right term—"dog hater" to a "wicked oppressor of the old age pensioner's only companion". It was enough to deter me from ever mentioning the subject again during any meeting in my constituency. If the hon. Gentleman has not already taken on additional secretarial assistance, he will probably need to do so when the Bill is in Committee.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill and wish to support it. The valid criticism that has been expressed, again from both sides of the House, has been of successive Governments rather than of the hon. Gentleman and his Bill. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) rightly said that it is the job of the Government rather than that of individual Back Benchers to introduce legislation of this sort, no matter how well intentioned Back Benchers might be.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who introduced two Ten-Minute Bills on this subject during the previous Parliament. Predictably, his name is on the list of the Bill's sponsors.

I do not intend to justify the lack of action in this area by the previous Labour Government. As a junior member of that Administration, I assure the House that if a suggestion had come before the Whips' Office during the four years that I was there that legislation should be introduced to control dogs, the pungent comments for which the Whips' Office is privately, if not publicly, known would have been fairly strong. We considered at that time that we had enough problems on our hands without embarking on this type of legislation.

Fairly early on in the life of the previous Labour Government a working party was set up, which reported in 1976. It is interesting and relevant to consider its remit and to contrast it with the lack of action from both Labour and Conservative Governments since the working party reported. It was set up

"To examine the law, customs and practice relating to the control of dogs, including licensing arrangements and the problems of strays; and to make recommendations."

I understand that it received evidence and comments from 91 different organisations. Information and statistics were provided by local authority associations and police forces throughout the country.

The working party took into account the issues raised in numerous parliamentary questions, in letters from Members of Parliament and in direct evidence from members of the public. The somewhat emotive way in which the working party's report opened shows the depth of feeling about dogs. I sometimes think that this nation has a mythical reputation of being a nation of dog lovers. As I travel round my constituency, especially on some of the larger housing estates, I think that a more accurate description would appear to be a nation of dog keepers—and we do not appear to do that very well. Many dogs, regarded very much as family pets, are turned out to fend for themselves from fairly early in the morning until 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening. That is an appalling indictment of the multi-faceted approach of the nation towards animals in general and dogs in particular.

The working party's report began:

"There is a very close and long-standing relationship between the two."

That is the relationship between men and dogs.

"This relationship is somewhat mocked, occasionally cheapened and often ignored, but for many people dogs are indispensable as companions and working help mates. It is regrettably true that they are also treated by many others as mere objects to he used without feeling and discarded without compunction. The fact that so many of the dog problems which now cause concern in this country are the result of unintentional or thoughtless cruelty should not disguise the fact that the cruelty exists and, since the victim is both trusting and defenceless, is an affront to any civilised society".

The working party's report appeared to be as confused about the total number of dogs in Britain as the rest of us. It estimated that by mid-1980 there would be about 6 million dogs in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) pointed out that one of the difficulties with legislation—whether it is introduced by means of a Private Member's Bill or by the Government—is that any increase in the dog licence fee all too often falls on the law-abiding rather than the lawless. I am yet to be convinced that those who refuse to pay the present paltry fee can be persuaded or cajoled into paying a substantially greater fee. I hope that the Minister will give the House some guidance on that point.

There has been some criticism during the debate of the fact that local authorities will play a bigger part in the licensing of dogs than they do now. Local authorities have always had responsibilities for dogs and dog licensing. They collect dog licence fees via the post office and they are responsible for administering the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 and the Guard Dogs Act 1975—to name but three. For many years they have been responsible for the promulgation of byelaws on dogs.

The working party felt that there was a strong argument in favour of transferring the responsibility for dealing with stray dogs from the police to local authorities. That is probably why it recommended that so strongly. The working party also said that strays could best be dealt with by dog wardens. It commented on the need for additional manpower and expressed great concern about how those manpower requirements would be financed.

A charge for keeping dogs has been levied since 1796. The rate varied from time to time, but in 1867 it was replaced by an excise duty of 5s. and was increased in 1878—predictably, by a Conservative Government—to 7s. 6d. Despite decimalisation, that figure has remained static. Local authorities were first made responsible for collecting licence fees by the Dog Licences Act 1959. In the event of local authorities setting up dog warden schemes, the working party—in 1976—suggested a licence fee of £5. I do not know the value of £5 in 1982 compared with 1976.

That very point has disturbed me greatly. Apart from the issue of local taxation, it means that the good dog owners in a local authority will carry the entire cost. Surely this should be a national matter. No hon. Member would support legislation designed to give local authorities an absolutely open power to fix whatever fee they wished. The likely cost will be £10, or more, particularly in an area which has an expensive dog warden scheme.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has touched on two vital weaknesses in the proposed legislation. That is no criticism of the hon. Member for Kingswood. Most hon. Members would think that it was nonsense to have differential rates of dog licence fees throughout the country. I remember some of the more lurid newspapers in the 1950s reporting events that took place in America. There was one well publicised offence of a minor being taken across a state line for immoral purposes. If we have different rates for dog licences, will it be an offence to take a dog across a county boundary—whether for moral or immoral purposes—with intent to avoid a higher licence fee?

Different rates would be nonsense. Most hon. Members would agree that the licence fee needs to be increased, but that it should be increased by the same amount throughout the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that good dog owners would be paying for the rest. Without substantial penalties, that is exactly what will happen. It happens today with road fund and television licences. There is widespread evasion, but it can be reduced by strong enforcement. Dog licences should conform with other licensing requirements made by modern society.

The problems have been well spelt out in the debate. I recall an incident that took place close to the constituency that is so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North. A motor car swerved to avoid a stray dog and killed two young sisters in an area covered by a local authority that I represented. There was a justifiable outcry. The memory of meeting the bereaved mother remains with me. The law on stray dogs must he more adequately enforced, because such dogs are a menace.

The hon. Gentleman has pointed to the relationship between clogs and fatal accidents. That is a valid point. However, is it not true that only some of the dogs involved are strays?

That may be right, but most of the dogs involved in major or minor accidents are not on leads. They are not necessarily strays. Many owners think it quite permissible to allow their dogs to have "a run round the block", but they overlook the fact that their dogs may be a nuisance not only to neighbours, but to passing motorists. Not all the dogs involved are strays, but they are loose and just as much a menace. Stray or not, loved or unloved, dogs cause accidents.

The risks to human health and the associated problems have been more than adequately illustrated. No Government should ignore the risks to children's health. I am sure that all hon. Members receive many letters on the nuisance caused by dogs fouling footpaths and parks. Again, that happens whether the dogs are stray or on a lead, loved or unloved.

I do not suggest that any Government should adopt Burnley borough council's policy. Its difficulties with dog owners have been well publicised. However, confess—no doubt unwisely, as the confession will remain with me for ever—that when I read the stories in the national newspapers, my sympathies were with the local authority, not the protesters.

A nation-wide problem should be tackled on a nationwide basis. However, it is never the right time to introduce legislation that involves spending public money. At the time of the working party report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that there was no money with which to implement the recommendations, but that does not alter the fact that they probably should have been implemented. They certainly should be implemented now.

Subsequent generations may see the economic problems of the 1970s as the golden age of British manufacturing industry. Boom or slump, recession or spending spree, there will always be relevant financial objections to such legislation. Nevertheless, it is long overdue.

The dog warden system has been successful in and around the metropolitan borough of Sandwell, in which my constituency lies. Since 1980 there has been a full-time dog warden, and there has been a notable reduction in the number of stray dogs and associated problems. I have some statistics for a three-month period some time ago. The dog warden has picked up 178 strays without identification. He returned 100 strays to their owners because they had identification tags and picked up 18 dogs from people who did not want them any more. In three months he has dealt with 296 cases. In a borough with 250, 000 people that is a small proportion of the total problem, but it shows the depth and nature of it.

To show that the dog warden does not regard his job as merely the collection and round-up of stray dogs, I should point out that in the same three-month period he dealt with no fewer than 15 complaints about foxes, which, in an urban area such as the West Midlands, is surprisingly high. To show his impartiality, he not only impounded dogs and chased foxes, but impounded four horses and managed to return nine stray cats to their owners. That illustrates the versatility and necessity of such an appointment, even in an urban area.

I understand that there was an attempt to introduce such legislation by the Labour Government through the Department of the Environment, but only for Northern Ireland. The main reason was the heavy incidence of sheep-worrying in Northern Ireland, which is 18 times greater than here. The fact is that legislation has been passed for Northern Ireland and that such legislation should be implemented in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We have had many requests for urgency from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The official Opposition welcome the Bill. There is much wrong with it—there normally is with any Bill—but we hope that its deficiencies can be rectified in Committee. We support its general expressions of view and its backbone. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood and his sponsors and wish them well. We hope to see the Bill on the statute book before long.

In view of the limited time and the fact that on both sides of the House there is a genuine desire to get the Bill through its Second Reading, I shall be brief but sincere in my comments. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on four matters. The first is his good fortune in being selected number five in the ballot. The second is his wisdom in selecting such an important subject. Thirdly, I congratulate him on the manner in which he has presented the Bill and fourthly, most importantly, on his perfect timing, especially in the wake of the international dog show at Crufts last weekend and the fact that within a mile of the Palace of Westminster, at the Tate Gallery, we have on display the finest collection of oil paintings of dogs that has ever been assembled in a permanent exhibition.

Every hon. Member has a debt of gratitude to dogs. That was typified by early-day motion 605 in the previous Session, which related to one of the finest servants the House has had. I refer to Ferdie the police dog who did duty in the House every working day for nine years.

The Bill commends itself to the House. One important by-product has not been mentioned. Once one can control stray dogs, one can maintain a better quality of dog. I am especially sad that, about 70 years ago, the Talbot terrier became extinct in Staffordshire because no one cared about dogs. Stray dogs are not the real nuisance. The heart of the problem is the fact that people and not dogs are responsible for the present position.

Between 1979 and 1980 there were 4, 600 accidents on our roads as a direct result of stray dogs, and 43 of those accidents were fatal.

On the debit side, we have had an excellent debate on the worrying of livestock, the fouling of public highways and dogs roaming in packs.

I should like to stress something that I believe to be much more important. It is within my knowledge, and has been mentioned by many hon. Members today, that rabies has spread across the continent of Europe. Rabies is prevalent 20 miles from the French coast. Those of us who have been in countries where rabies is prevalent can understand clearly the tremendous problems that would arise if rabies entered this country.

I am prepared to be fair about licence fees. The Bill requires something national to bind it together. That would be a national licence fee. It is horrific to consider that in the past four years the cost of collecting licence fees has been over £9 million. Most of the dogs that I see always seem to be five months and three weeks old. They never seem to reach six months.

In welcoming the Bill, as one of its sponsors, and in wishing it godspeed, I say with absolute certainty that some things are wrong with it. The House is in danger if we start saying that we shall go only half-way and if we start making compromises. I subscribe to the view that has been expressed that what we really need is a fully comprehensive measure introduced by Her Majesty's Government. However we do not have that measure.

I hope that the Bill will receive the assent of hon. Members present today and that it will go to Committee, where its flaws can be put right. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has done the House, the country and his constituency a great service by introducing the Bill I commend it to the House.

It might be for the convenience of the House if I make my observations now.

I add my personal word of congratulations to those received by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) from both sides of the House on his good fortune in drawing so high a place in the ballot. I also add a word of encouragement to him for his courage in proceeding. As hon. Members have recognised, the Private Member's Bill is a form of legislation of which the track history is far from bright.

It might give my hon. Friend some modest encouragement, and I might not yet risk the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes)—I have no doubt that it will come in due course—if I remind the House that the history of the legislation in large measure seems to be one of private Members trying to make progress with legislation.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the eighteenth century background. There is a delightful little history of taxation written by Mr. Stephen Dowell, which refers to the original introduction of taxation on dogs. I quote from page 294 of "History of Taxation and Taxes in England":

"These considerations prompted the first proposals for a tax on dogs made in former times in the house of commons; which came from private members, to whom revenue was a secondary object. Among such proposals may be mentioned the Dog Bill introduced in April 1755…This Bill failed to become law; and was followed by other suggestions to the same effect equally fruitless; until the Dog Bill brought in by Mr. Dent in 1796."

There is, therefore, a long and honourable history of private Members' legislation pertaining to dogs.

It is evident from the debate that while there is considerable agreement on the principle of wanting legislation, there is considerable disagreement as to what should be within that legislation. That is by no means unusual in a matter of this kind. There has been much discussion about whether the centralised role of licence determination and control is preferable to the role in which my hon. Friend's proposals have cast local authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Drake clearly believed that Governments are primarily to blame for failing to produce comprehensive legislation that has national application. I bow to her criticism. There has consistently been a will to examine, inquire and consult but perhaps less of a will to act. In part, Government's unwillingness to come forward with legislation in this area is due, first to the pressures of parliamentary timetabling and legislative programmes. These matters cannot be regarded as those which consistently come in the top quarter of what a Government, in a term of office, would seek to do.

Does the Minister accept that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill could have done all of this in three clauses?

The short answer is "No". The hon. Gentleman will understand that when I give my second reason why it has not been reasonable for Governments to tackle this task. Although, as a simple gesture, the solution would appear to require very little, the fact remains that the problem of legislating on dogs is extremely complex. The problem stems in part from the fact that it runs across five or six Departments of State. The Home Office is involved, with the police and their powers. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved in determining the licence fee. The Department of Health and Social Security is involved in matters pertaining to public health risk and the Department of the Environment is involved with local authority sponsorship. In addition, there are the formidable problems of designing a statute law that would earn the blessing of the Lord Chancellor's Department and deciding whether revenues become central or local government funds. While I deserve some of the strictures made by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake, it is extremely difficult to legislate on what appears to be a relatively simply matter. For that reason, Governments of each persuasion have found it difficult to find time to deal with the complexities in a legislat Lye framework.

We are dealing with a fairly precise series of proposals in this Bill. I do not think that any of us, whatever our views about the Bill's substance, can fail to be impressed by the way that my hon. Friend has researched his subject, consulted widely and tackled the drafting of the clauses. He has, I know, consulted local government, the RSPCA, the National Farmers Union and others. He has evidently consulted closely hon. Members who have experience in these matters. It is not the first Private Member's Bill in recent years that has attempted to get to grips with the problem. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is here to give eloquent testimony to that. My hon. Friend's Bill differs significantly from previous attempts. It is worth examining where those differences are and where I consider them to be of importance.

The Bill represents, I think it is fair to say, at first glance, a genuine attempt to get to grips with the subject by concentrating specifically and as clearly as possible on particular issues. It seeks in essence to provide specific discretionary powers for local authorities to control stray dogs and specific discretionary powers for authorities to set up dog warden schemes for this purpose. It also provides for local authorities to determine the level of the dog licence fee in their areas, having regard to the costs involved in dealing with strays and administering the licence fee system. The Bi11 also seeks to give local authorities the option of giving licence fee rebates to supplementary pensioners and agreeing concessionary fees to licensed breeders with more than five dogs.

This is certainly a most interesting package, extremely neatly presented. I have to say, however, that the Government need time to consider the implications. As well as offering a partial solution, the Bill raises a multitude of questions. The approach adopted in the B111 has aroused differing views among hon. Members. The discretionary power for local authorities to raise licence fees has attracted some fairly formidable comment, if not criticism, from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Local authorities have certain discretionary powers in matters of taxation. The approach adopted in the Bill is, however, unique in relation to the widespread ownership and usage, if I may use that word, of dogs in society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has already drawn attention to the wide scale of dog ownership, A quarter of a million households could be affected by any legislation concerning dogs. The distribution of the households means that practically every local authority in the country will have a substantial number of dog owners in its area. Yet the discretionary power that my hon. Friend includes in the Bill appears, at first glance, to indicate that some authorities may, if they are so minded, raise licence revenue to cover the cost of elaborate systems of dog wardens and control. Some authorities may set a licence fee that does not cover such services. Although there is an amendment to the parent Act in relation to central Government's interest in licence fees, it does not appear to me entirely clear what may be the ultimate relationship between central Government and local authorities which seek to set variable fees according to the political wishes of the councillors concerned.

Is it not also a fact that under the Bill a local authority would be able not to charge any fee at all? As a result of other enactments repealed by the Bill, is there not a chance that no dog licence fee whatever would be raised?

I am not entirely certain that I can answer that question. That is one of the problems that I face in connection with the Bill. It would appear that the Bill seeks to delete those powers at present possessed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to vary the licence fee and related conditions. I am not entirely clear about what will happen in relation to the power of a local authority to set no fee at all. It seems to me that the possibility could arise, through the discretionary power offered in clause 3, for the local authority to set a zero fee.

Is it not a fact that a local authority, if it so wished, could decide to put the cost of administering a dog warden scheme and similar matters on to the ratepayers, irrespective of whether they are dog owners?

There is little doubt, I think, that although local authorities are given a discretionary power by the Bill to raise a licence fee, there is no obligation, as I see it, for all local authorities to pay for a dog warden service through a licence fee. They may decide to introduce a dog warden scheme financed by rate payments. I remind the House that the Government and their predecessor have encouraged local authorities to take voluntary action, if they are so minded, in dog control. Many of them do so. About 100 have control schemes, which, of course, are rate-funded. So clearly the principle of non-dog owners paying for dog control has been used in some local authorities, but whether that is acceptable, I cannot say.

My hon. Friend said that these proposals are a good package, but that he has not had long to think about them. The working party on dogs reported several years ago, so the Government and Governments have had a long time to think about their general approach to this matter. No doubt the Government will therefore be ready to bring forward positive and helpful amendments during the Committee stage. I wonder whether my hon. Friend at this stage would like to say that the Government are committed to a helpful and positive attitude towards this Bill and would like to see it go through.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), would like me to say that, and to say it now. However, I ask him to bear with me a little longer, before I give him the answer that he seeks.

The question of the relationship between tax revenue proposals for local authorities and the current powers of central Government is not a simple matter that can be put right merely by an amendment in Committee. It is a major principle on which the Bill stands or possibly falls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North talked about the working party report on dogs. I admit that there has been considerable discussion about the working party's recommendations and how those recommendations should be applied. The Government's general view is that the movement, which we welcome, among local authorities to introduce their own schemes is possibly a better way to proceed than a centrally determined scheme. On the other hand, we know that local authorities already have wide powers to deal with some of the more fundamental nuisances of dog control, such as fouling, to which the working party drew attention.

The Bill raises a number of issues, some of which have been touched on today. It is not possible for me to come to a clear conclusion now. I want to mention some of its provisions and the problems that they raise. The preamble states that it seeks to

"Make new provision relating to responsibility for dogs in the community, including the establishment of a national dog warden scheme based on local authority areas;".

As there is a discretionary provision in the Bill about local dog warden schemes, the Bill cannot provide a mandatory dog warden scheme. I suggest, therefore, that it is difficult to determine the principles on which the Bill seeks to make statute law.

Clause 1 says that local authorities "may assume" control. Where they can appoint dog warden services they can of course use their powers and set licence fees. However, the clause raises a number of questions. Is there a need for clause 1(1), given that local authorities in England and Wales already seek this power through local legislation? Six county councils have already obtained it, and I understand that the power is also contained in the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, which is now before the House. I believe that about 20 authorities have already sought the power in Scotland. Again, will the provision of dog wardens improve the situation where dog nuisance and dog control problems arise? That is a matter about which hon. Members have argued eloquently this morning, saying that it would improve the situation. Is it a good thing to specify national standards in dealing with the duties of a dog warden? Are the general powers to be performed by a dog warden under part II of schedule 1 acceptable? Those questions relate to the fundamental use that will be made of the Bill if it is enacted. Major problems arise as a result of clause 2, which deals with taxing the dog owner. Is it right that local authorities should exercise such a method of taxation?

Clause 3 deals with charging fees for a dog licence. There will be substantial differences in the way in which local authorities interpret their task. There will be differences in standards, depending on the attitudes of local councils, on the cost of running warden schemes and on the importance that a council attaches to the scheme. If the Bill is enacted local authorities in adjacent areas will set different standards for performance and fee. The standards could be changed regularly because one must admit that the turnround in political control of local authorities is frequent. That must result in differences in licensing policies and in the way in which dog warden schemes are run.

One must ask whether the standards sought in the Bill are sufficient or whether local authorities are being asked to undertake a licensing procedure and warden scheme that will not stand the test of time. Clause 4 gives local authorities power to determine fees. Such matters and their implications cause us real difficulty.

Neither I nor the Government are against dogs. We have sustained a sharp attack from both sides. We are accused of being against taking any action. It is not right to believe that local authorities or Government Departments are against dogs per se. People are against the nuisances for which dogs are responsible from time to time. People seek greater control of dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood seeks to deal with such problems. He wants to deal with the problems of fouling and strays, which stir the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke of the problems caused by dogs fouling beaches. That stirs the public to write to their local council, Members of Parliament and Ministers. Local authorities and organisations such at the RSPCA are at the sharp end of such problems and they are also concerned.

I accept that the matter is sensitive. Heads shake and hearts beat when the problems of dog nuisance and dog control are raised. I dare say that tails wag too. It is misguided to assume that dogs are being attacked when people argue about such matters and dog control is discussed. Nevertheless, it is recognised that some dog lovers fear that is the case, so much so that all those engaged in considering dog problems or who are on the receiving end of pressure to take action, take great care to establish their credentials and to join the attractive category of dog lovers. That is, indeed, the position in which we see ourselves as a Government. We do not wish to be against dogs. We are trying to grapple with the problems and difficulties that dogs can cause. We are considering whether central legislation is the correct way to tackle the problems.

I note that the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, for example, is equally concerned. In its 1980 annual report it stated categorically

"the Institution is not anti-dog".

I am sure that it is right to make such a statement unequivocally when people feel so strongly.

The Government are aware that the present arrangements are, overall, less than satisfactory, especially the licence fee collection cost. No one in his right mind can deny that there is a substantial difference between the cost of collection and the fee. But that difference has evolved over time, and it is not easy to alter it at the stroke of a pen. It is only since 1978-79 that the administrative cost of collecting the licence fee via post offices has outstripped the revenue received. The Government have made no secret of this in answering questions. However, time is not on our side.

Understandably, in debating legislation on dogs, the example of dog control in Northern Ireland is quoted. As the Minister who was concerned with the scheme in Northern Ireland, I am glad to know that it it making progress. But the conditions in Northern Ireland cannot be replicated here. In Northern Ireland, the problem involved large numbers of dogs in packs attacking humans as well as animals. Moreover, the problems of the police in Northern Ireland provided a prima facie case for saying that transfer to local authorities of responsibility for the control of dogs was almost a necessity. We cannot use the Northern Ireland experience as a reason for introducing a similar scheme here

Substantial comment has been made on the predicament of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. I need to clear up one or two misconceptions that may have crept into some people's minds about the powers available to local councils to control dogs. A variety of powers exist already that they may exercise if, in their judgment, the circumstances in their areas so warrant. It is up to individual authorities to choose whether they make byelaws to control fouling, to make orders to keep dogs on leads on roads, or to create dog warden schemes. These general powers are important for the prevention of hazards to traffic and the public in general.

A number of local authorities have alreac13, sought similar powers to those of the police for seizure, detention and disposal of strays. That illustrates another route by which local authorities can introduce controls on dogs. I have already referred to the Civil Government (Scotland) Bill which contains general powers to deal with strays and to appoint dog wardens on the same basis as the police. It is, therefore, untrue to assert that local authorities do not have the powers to deal with dogs. They have a substantial range of powers and in many cases are using them wisely and well. However, I accept that the Bill proposes a unique package of measures designed to deal with the problems of dog control and strays.

I also accept that the size of the problem prompts hon. Members to call for further action. It is difficult to quantify how many dogs are in private ownership and exactly how many are licensed. We do not know how many strays there are, and I am grateful for the information provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake. However, there is no doubt that the dog population has increased substantially this century. An estimate of the total dog population in the United Kingdom was included in the report published in 1975 by the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society under the chairmanship of Lord Houghton. That report estimated that the dog population was 3.2 million in 1956 and 5 million in 1966. It rose to about 6 million in 1975. It is estimated that about half of these are licensed and up to 1 million are regarded as strays of one kind or another.

A dog population of this size and character in an urbanised society where social habits and values are changing, and where road traffic is increasing, poses, as has often been argued, the problems of strays, fouling of public places, traffic accidents, the worrying of livestock, which can quickly spread into rural areas if packs of urban dogs are involved, and attacks on people. In addition there is the problem of diseases transmitted by dogs. There is no question but that that is also a hazard. Finally, there is the major threat of rabies, which has been referred to by one hon. Member this morning.

The working party attempted to consider all these problems, especially that of strays which it defined widely as "unaccompanied dogs". It felt that strays were a predominant cause of concern and that, if they could be dealt with adequately, other problems would fall into place. Whether that is the case is a matter for debate, and it appears from what hon. Members have said that they regard the problem of adequate control of dogs as going beyond the problem of strays and including proper ownership of dogs and high standards of dog control in general.

One of the main recommendations of the working party was that statutory responsibility for dealing with stray dogs under the Dogs Act 1906 should be transferred from the police to local authorities. Naturally we have to consider the references to strays in the Bill in relation to the references in the report. The definition of "stray dog" still needs clarification in the Bill.

The working party's report provided a comprehensive survey which in general still holds good and demonstrates the wide variety of subjects that fall under the heading "dogs". It also illustrates that, without care and attention, it is possible to design a system of control for local authorities that quite easily can go overboard in its use of local manpower and resources. It is that aspect of the working party's report that has caused most difficulty for successive Administrations in determining whether to implement some of its recommendations nationally. We would do well to bear these warnings in mind when contemplating any significant dog schemes.

Another problem was road safety and the control of dogs. The working party recommended the introduction of legislation requiring dogs to be kept on the lead on all roads where street lighting was provided or which were the subject of speed limits. I do not want to make too much of this, but in 1980 in a little more that one half of 1 per cent. of all injury accidents, a dog was reported to have been on the road. We cannot conclude that dogs have necessarily been the cause of the accidents, that dogs and not the drivers provided the cause. Dog control is at a pretty high level, as their involvement in accidents demonstrates.

Has my hon. Friend any figures to show that proportionately a good many more accidents are caused by horses and by cattle on roads than by dogs? I understand that there are more, and that the number of road accidents caused by dogs is considerably lower.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I have no such figures available, and I am not entirely certain that they would be relevant to the problem of dog control. But I take the point that a great many accidents are caused by animals of all kinds.

The eloquent and moving reference to dog diseases by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North was evidence of the dangers. There is no doubt that action to try to limit the spread of diseases transmitted by dogs is very important. Action can be taken primarily by local authorities where it involves cleaning up the mess made by dogs in public places. Of course, it is control of the dog by owner that is possibly the best way of containing diseases transmitted by dogs. A properly controlled and cared for dog ought not to be a dog that transmits diseases.

The House will wish me to say what is the Government's attitude to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood published the Bill, and it arrived in its present form in my Department on 9 February. I have to tell my hon. Friend that in the intervening seven working days it has not been possible for the Government to give the Bill the full consideration that it deserves and to arrive at a view about whether it should be enacted. So many Departments are involved in legislation affecting dogs that it has physically not been possible either to complete the discussions required or to resolve some of the major policy issues involved in the measure.

Therefore, I am not in the position to give the House the kind of advice that my hon. Friend would wish me to give. We need to address ourselves to the whole of the Bill, which involves many changes in the legislation. It also includes the substantial difficulty about the extent to which local authorities can set licence fees and be self-financing for the operation of the scheme, how they relate to adjacent authorities who do not want to do this kind of thing and to the question whether the Government should have licence fees, as they have always done.

We need to review the measures and evaluate their implications in the light of the considerations expressed by hon. Members today. Having listened to the entire debate it is clear to me that there are major differences of view as to what it the most desirable way of legislating for dogs. I am not impressed by those who say that some legislation is better than none while at the same time pointing out that the Bill involves major differences in the way in which we have traditionally viewed the control of dogs through licence fees and the control measures between local authorities and the individual citizens.

Therefore, the Government are unable to give the kind of guidance that the House would wish. The prime reason for that is that we have had only a short period of time in which to view the contents of the Bill.

The report of the working party came out seven years ago. Governments of both parties have had an incredible length of time to sort out their attitude to the problem.

I can only repeat what I said earlier, that Governments of both persuasions did not feel it right to bring forward legislation because their legislative programme involved significantly more important measures.

The Bill involves major changes in the current regime for dogs and requires major consultation, particularly on the issues involved, as well as the detailed legislation. It is for that reason that I am unable to give the House the guidance that usually the Government give on a Private Member's Bill.

As co-sponsor of what has rightly been called the "dog lovers' Bill", may I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall) on ensuring that the House has the opportunity to debate the increasingly difficult problems relating to the canine members of our society. We have always prided ourselved on being a nation of dog lovers, and this measure will do much to advance this.

The responsible dog owner has nothing to fear from the Bill, which is intended to safeguard both dogs and the public 'alike. Only the irresponsible, rightly, will be adversely affected. When one considers that about 2, 000 injuries each year are caused by stray dogs, and that about 6, 000 farm animals are killed each year by stray dogs, it is clear that action must be taken. When one considers the serious health dangers, in particular to children, that can be created as a consequence of the fouling of public places by stray dogs, it is clear that action must be taken. When one considers the evident nuisance, often to elderly citizens, resulting from annoyance by stray dogs, it is again clear that action must be taken.

The dog licence system, still at the 1878 level of 7s. 6d., or 35p in modern parlance, is both archaic and useless. Fifty per cent. of dog owners appear not to bother to buy a licence and the cost of collection outweighs the income by £3 million to £1 million.

To have the current system of licensing at all it must be justified on the ground of achieving some good. Does the money help the dog? It does not. Does the money help the dog owner? It does not. Does the money help the Government? It does not. Does the money help the local authority? It does not.

To introduce a realistic licence fee, as this Bill intends, which is then devoted to having a national dog wardens scheme based on local authority areas must make good sense. The district council can then provide a service at no cost to the ratepayer or taxpayer which will help to ensure a better, healthier, safer and more realistic relationship between dog lovers and those not so captivated by canine qualities.

The average dog owner spends between £1.50 and £2 a week on his pet. The suggestion of a £5 licence means only about the equivalent of three weeks cost being spent per year for the advantages of the new system. The dog warden will be able to take action to curb an offending animal by seeing on the dog's collar the owner's address. I would also hope that a licence tag would become mandatory.

It has been suggested that dog wardens will be akin to traffic wardens, but I have some doubts about that, although, of course, the principle is the same. The notion of slapping a ticket on a quiescent hound may in reality lead to interesting exchanges, perhaps a little more physical and a little more painful than the usual confrontation with a motorist. "First catch your dog" may well have to be the motto of our intrepid heroes or heroines.

To relieve the police from an onerous additional duty must be an extra benefit of the Bill, particularlly when one recalls that they deal with about 180, 000 stray dogs a year, of which, sadly, 60, 000 have to be destroyed. Much better that our splendid police force be given greater opportunity to deal with the more serious situations relating to law and order.

It must be hoped that a further benefit of a more realistic licence fee will be the curtailment of the appalling tendency by far too many people to abandon dogs, particularly after puppyhood. This selfishness creates untold misery, for dogs and humans alike. It may well be more realistic for a licence to have to be bought before an animal can be purchased.

It has been said that every dog has his day. The Bill will enhance those days for dogs, but at the same time it will enhance the days for the public.

In view of the lateness of the hour and the length of time that we have been debating the Bill, I shall be brief.

I cannot extend to the Bill the unqualified welcome of other hon. Members, so my reception to it is guarded. There are problems associated with dogs which have no owners or which run loose. They cause considerable concern in town and country. In my area we have particular problems with dogs that worry cattle and livestock.

If the Bill has a Second Reading, it will go into Committee. The promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall), says that he and the sponsors are prepared to consider amendments. The problem is that the promoter of a Private Member's Bill tends to tell the Chairman of the Committee of Selection who he would like to serve on the Committee, so critical minds such as mine may not be included.

Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if I indicate broadly where the Bill must be improved. The curious effect of clause 3, which deals with licence fees, will be to remove the general liability to pay a dog licence fee and to leave only such a liability or obligation as the local authority may choose to impose. The bizarre effect is that local authorities in some areas may choose to impose no fee.

Let us assume for the moment that there will be a dog licence fee. My criticism of clause 3 is essentially twofold. First, I do not think that the exemptions go far enough. I agree with what has been said from the now empty Labour Benches to the effect that the elderly should be exempted. I am very much in favour of the exemption extending to working dogs. I have in mind in particular those employed in agriculture for looking after sheep and cattle, but there are, of course, other working dogs that we ought to consider. I also think that the present relief extended to hounds under the age of 12 months, not yet in a pack, should be continued. Therefore, I am in favour of the retention of the existing exemptions for working dogs and hounds and would hope that the extension would be made to include elderly dog owners who are in receipt of an old-age pension.

I am very unhappy with the proposal that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be deprived of his regulatory powers under the Local Government Act 1966. It is important that any licence fee that is imposed should be national. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood not to remove from the Minister his power to regulate the licence fee to be charged.

I should be prepared to see a system whereby the Minister laid down a maximum and a minimum fee, the local authority being able to fix its own fee somewhere between the brackets, but I would not be prepared to see a system under which the Government were deprived of all means of regulating the fee, because that would work considerable injustice to my constituents among others.

I have listened to the debate with considerable interest, and no one has touched on the powers of dog wardens and the obligations imposed on the community. With great respect to some hon. Members, I do not think that they have examined the obligations imposed on members of the community. If they had, I do not think that the Bill would receive the support of this House.

I am sorry to be pedantic about this point, but I may not be on the Committee, and this is the last opportunity I have to indicate two serious defects in schedule 1. The first relates to paragraph 6 of part II of schedule 1, which provides that a person shall., if required by a dog warden, produce the licence at a place designated by the dog warden. I have no particular objection, in the context of these kinds of regulations, to an obligation to produce a licence, but I object to the obligation to produce a licence at a place designated by the dog warden.

I have in mind the example of a constituent of mine who chooses to go for a holiday in Cornwall. He leaves his dog licence in Grantham, but he is instructed to produce his dog licence within five days at some place in Cornwall. That would be an intolerable burden on my constituent, who would have to go home, hurry back within five days, and produce the licence at the designated place.

The changes that I would be prepared to contemplate are twofold—first, an extension of the five-day period; second, and much more important, the person required to produce the licence should be entitled to choose the place of its production. This is a matter for debate and discussion. It could be the local police station, it could be the post office, or it could be another local authority office, but it must be a place to which the person having the dog licence is able to go conveniently. There is a very good precedent for this.

Hon. Members know, when dealing with the production of driving licences, that the Road Traffic Act 1972 provided that a motorist should discharge his statutory obligation by producing his licence at a police station of his own choice. This Bill gives a dog warden the power that Parliament has shrunk from entrusting to police officers. Therefore, it is essential that we should modify paragraph 6 to enable a dog owner to produce his licence at the place of his choice and not at the place of the dog warden's choice. That is my first criticism.

My second criticism is also of a drafting character but it is even more important. The Bill provides that a person commits a criminal offence if he

"intentionally obstructs a dog warden acting in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

We want to be careful not to impose an obligation on members of the public from which we would shrink. If we did that, we would be acting unreasonably. One must therefore refer to the schedule to understand what a dog warden's powers are and whether failure to comply with his request would be reasonable or unreasonable.

Paragraph 9 of schedule 1 is a rum proposition. It states:

"A dog warden may give advice to any person an any issue of public concern relating to dogs or any aspect of keeping a dog as a pet and such advice may relate to problems caused by stray dogs."

The schedule is stating that a dog warden has the statutory right to give us a lecture. That is bad enough, but what is worse is the provision contained in a substantive part of the Bill which states that it will be a criminal offence to obstruct a dog warden in the course of his duty. That means no more and no less than this:If I am approached by a dog warden who proposes to give me a lecture and I say "Enough of this nonsense, my friend, I am not going to put up with it" and turn away, I am guilty of a criminal offence. Furthermore, if I see my wife being badgered by one such tiresome gentleman and step between her and the dog warden and say "Enough of this, this is nonsense", I am committing a criminal offence. That would be the result of the provision.

Paragraph 9 strongly reinforces my hon. Friend's argument. It states:

"A dog warden may give advice to any person on any issue of public concern relating to dogs or any aspect of keeping a dog as a pet and such advice may relate to problems caused by stray dogs."

Dog wardens are to be told to give advice to owners, and one can imagine what some owners might think of that.

My hon. and learned Friend is right, but perhaps he did not emphasise the wideness of the power.

The warden's power to give a lecture is not confined to a dog owner. It is a power to lecture anybody. Therefore, if a dog warden sees somebody who clearly needs a lecture and decides that he has a lecture to unburden, he will start lecturing. If a person has had enough and turns away, he will be committing a criminal offence.

To test the folly of that, let us contemplate the House stating "We will give a statutory right to Members of Parliament to give their constituents a lecture. Furthermore, it will be a criminal offence to obstruct the Member of Parliament performing this laudable objective." The country would be in an uproar, as would be the constituents of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).

Never mind what my constituents might or might not feel. Are we not in great danger of turning this Bill—which has wide support on both sides of the House—into a lawyers' tennis game? If the hon. Gentleman wants to make all these points, he can volunteer to serve on the Committee. He says that wardens may lecture anyone. Since the hon. Gentleman was elected, he has never shown any great shyness about lecturing the House and his colleagues on each and every subject—while being sedentary or standing to attention—at any time.

That is right. I have never been backward about lecturing the House. However, it would be intolerable if the House were under a statutory obligation to listen to me. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he does not like what I have to say he may leave the Chamber. We shall be sorry to see him leave, but he can do that if he wishes. Under the Bill, if the hon. Gentleman were to leave a dog warden, as I hope he will leave me very soon, he would commit a criminal offence that would be punishable before the courts. The absurdity of the proposition beggars the imagination. I am not being flippant. It may sound as if I am, but I am merely seeking to amuse and instruct.

The proposed powers of the dog warden are excessive in the two respects that I have mentioned. I must mention them now because I find frequently that the sponsors of private Members' legislation choose the Members who should consider their Bills in committee. I do not begrudge them that privilege; it is perfectly proper. However, it means that those who have serious comments to make must express them on Second Reading, in correspondence or on Report. If they are left to when the Bill is considered on Report, the Bill may have been lost.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will consider the powers in the schedule and will ask himself whether they are reasonable. If he shares my view that they are not, they must be amended in Committee. I shall be quite happy but not very content to see the Bill given a Second Reading. However, it requires substantial amendment in Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend will approach it in that spirit.

The Bill is supposed to be concerned with the proper control of dogs. The control of dogs, like the control of children, requires a certain amount of discipline. The Bill would have hilarious results. Not one dog, including my own, would vote for the Bill. Perhaps some dog lovers think that it is a good idea.

I doubt whether dogs would vote for the hon. and learned Gentleman.

There is no definition of a stray dog in the Bill. The Minister said that a stray dog might be an unaccompanied dog. I do not share that view.

I shall tell the House about Toby, a golden Labrador, who is well known in the House. He is beautiful and much beloved in the corridors of power.

Is he a Member?

He is very nearly a Member—he has accompanied me here so often. He is so well known and loved by the police, the servants of the House and the lift attendants that he is seldom accompanied by me. He is usually accompanied by a police officer, a lift attendant or by others who like to look after him.

Toby has moved untrammelled through the corridors of power and has come near to being able to vote. I have never had the temerity to bring him into the Chamber. He is virtually never on a lead. That is because he is controlled and disciplined. He travels without a lead in the park, on the underground, on buses and so on. He was put on his lead when he visited Selfridges sale. Unfortunately, he was very nearly seduced by a number of shoppers. Because of his seductive powers, I had to put him on a lead. In Thanet, we do not have dogs on the beaches in the summer because we do not want the beaches fouled. However, in the winter Toby and other dogs go unaccompanied along Thanet's beaches and they cause no harm. Therefore, we are dealing with discipline and control for the few dogs that are genuinely stray, that are unaccompanied and that are not controlled in any way.

How should we deal with them? Those best able to look after dogs have been entrusted with that task since 1906. I refer to the police. They are very good with dogs. They train and understand them. Even in local areas, they love the dogs and recognise that at times particular dogs can be a nuisance. I hope that schools will educate children to love dogs and to understand that if dogs are not kept on leads, they must be properly trained. Most of us are dog lovers.

The 1906 Act gives fairly effective control. It is not true that there have been 20, 000 accidents in one year as a result of stray dogs. There is no vestige of truth in that statement. There is some truth in the statement that some dogs have been involved in some road accidents and that the figure might be that high. However, we still do not know whether the accidents were the fault of the dogs or of the drivers, and we are even less aware whether the dogs were strays. That is true, unless "stray" is so tightly construed as to mean any dog that is not on a lead or accompanied by an owner or guardian. I spent many years at the Bar, but I know of very few accidents caused by stray dogs. Many accidents were caused by stray cattle and several were caused by horses that had shied. Therefore, the problem is small.

It has been said that dogs kill animals. Section 1 the Dogs Act 1906 clearly states:

"The owner of a dog shall be liable in damages for injury done to any cattle by that dog."

The Bill deals specifically with any injury done to any animal. If it is proved that a dog has injured cattle, it can be dealt with under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 as a dangerous dog. Therefore, dogs that upset farmers by killing sheep or injuring cattle are covered by a perfectly good arrangement under which full compensation can be paid and the dog may often properly be destroyed.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the fact that many dogs are not licensed and that many of those that trespass on farms, particularly near cities, do not wear collars and cannot be indentified. Even if the police are interested, they cannot give any admissible evidence.

Those dogs can be, and frequently are, shot or disposed of by the farmer. He is entitled to do that if a dog worries his cattle. I do not know of any unidentifiable stray dog in Kent that has caused injury to cattle or poultry. After all, in the countryside people almost always know who is the owner of a dog, even if the dog has no collar. We are talking here about farming and village communities.

The real problem is in the towns and, more especially, on council housing estates and other large estates where dogs are allowed to run around during the day. It is all very well to say that the dogs must be shut up all day. However, if a man goes out to work in the morning and is not allowed to take the dog to his place of work and if his wife also goes out to work and they do not have a garden of any significant size, their dog may be allowed to roam around. Dogs will go out and come home for meals, and many will behave properly. People may know to whom they belong, but they can cause a real problem—although not one with which the Bill can deal.

The problem is an educative one. We must provide as one does with children, a creche—a place where dogs may be left during the day and be collected in the evening. True dog lovers may prefer to set up such a dog creche within the community in order that the dogs may be cared for properly.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a great difficulty in inner city areas arises from the persistent barking of dogs? If so, does he believe that the existing legislation can cope with that problem?

My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) has put his finger on a real problem affecting dogs living not in the countryside and shire areas but in inner cities. Paddington is an area where the problem can arise. The Bill will not assist, because one of two things can happen. The dog may be allowed out in Paddington Green, in which case it may cause a mess, not return to its home and get locked out. If it is left in the house, it may start to bark and cause an immense amount of noise. The Bill does not cover that. If the dog is left in the house, no one can do anything about it.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

As I was saying until I was interrupted, I am opposed to the Bill. Many hon. Members are opposed to the cost of any system being borne by the local authority. There should be a national scheme. It is not right that the cost should fall on dog lovers and dog owners. The cost should be met by the whole of society through a national scheme. Unnecessary powers through the creation of what is virtually a dog detective force will be created. Unnecessary powers will also be given to dog wardens.

Those are some of the reasons why I believe that the

Bill is misguided in the way that it is drafted. That is not to say that we do not need better education about the care and control of dogs. That can be done by consultative and educative processes. I hope that the Government will introduce measures along those lines. It would not appear possible to make amendments upstairs——

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 February.

:Object.

(Brent, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Chair protects the rights of Back Benchers, will you note that this Bill is opposed not by the Government, but the Back Benchers——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentary and he knows that an objection on a Friday afternoon effectively means just that.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 July.

:Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

:Object.

:Object.

(Stockport, North): It seems that the Government Whips are objecting to the Bill. Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

:Object.

Second Reading what day?No day named.

:Object.

Following the dramatic success of the Lancaster House talks and the independence ceremonies in Zimbabwe, many right hon. and hon. Members who, like myself, have closely followed events in Namibia over the years hoped that a new impetus would be given to the interminable talks on the future of Namibia. It was not to be.

I hope that this short debate will give the Government a better chance than they have at Question Time or in a general and rambling foreign affairs debate to tell the House what has really caused the endless delays in recent months, and what more my country can and will do to help to achieve a just, honourable and, above all, lasting settlement in this part of Southern Africa.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being on the Front Bench today. I am only sorry that this has led to a number of cancelled engagements in his constituency. However, his constituency will understand that, having elected an outstanding and able Member of Parliament, it is inevitable that the Prime Minister wishes fully to deploy his talents, as does the House. No right hon. or hon. Member has a better grasp of recent events concerning Namibia.

I shall not spend too much time discussing the background to recent events. Suffice it to say that Namibia, formerly South-West Africa, has fewer than 1 million inhabitants, is a coastal State the size of France and Germany put together, and has been the subject of international dispute since 1946. In the words of a Foreign Affairs Research Institute paper:

"Its mineral wealth and strategic global placing make its ultimate disposition important to East and West."

"Internationally it is proving a test of United Nations credibility, of Western diplomacy and the effectiveness of the OAU, and a factor in the shaping of the new American policy towards Southern Africa. Internally it is a test-case of the survival of democracy in a multi-ethnic African country."

I agree with those comments.

South Africa's involvement stems from 1919 when the League of Nations entrusted South Africa with the task of administering this former German colony. In 1966 the United Nations declared in full assembly that the mandate was at an end and it assumed direct responsibility.

To break the dangerous deadlock between South Africa and the United Nations, five Western members of the Security Council—Britain, the United States, France, West Germany and Canada—offered themselves as honest brokers. This contact group, set to work on the basis of UN resolution 385 of 1976, was accepted by Pretoria, SWAPO, the UN and the internal parties. That resolution and resolution 435 of 1978 called for free elections under the control of the United Nations and the withdrawal of South Africa.

I pay tribute to the work of the contact group and in particular to the part played by this Government. It is a part of which we can all be proud. My main message to the Government is that they have a clear duty to strain every sinew to get the talks to succeed. The weight of world opinion must be brought to bear to achieve a magnanimous settlement. Failure will lead straight to hatred, despair and degradation.

The contact group has been at pains to allay the fears of the internal parties and the minority groups concerning the possible creation of a one-party State after the first election—this week's news out of Salibury will have heightened those fears—and the subsequent suppression of minority interests and rights.

Black African objections to the proposed one-man, two-vote formula at the very least suggest to me that the timetable may be slipping. I have no doubt that the Minister will seek to assure the House that this rather complicated formula is essential. I certainly always start by seeking a very simple form of electoral system.

The contact group's so-called phase two involves highly contentious issues, including the size, composition and deployment of the UN transition assistance group which is to police a ceasefire and supervise the elections. I ask my hon. Friend to inform us of the latest developments over UNTAG this afternoon.

According to newspaper reports, no doubt inspired by the Foreign Office, the United Kingdom is to form the vanguard of the force. How many troops are still earmarked? Has a British battalion been allocated as well as signals and communications units? What about hardware, radios, trucks and helicopters?

United Nations peacekeeping was the subject of a debate which I initiated in March 1979. Peacekeeping by UN forces has become an essential part of the work done by the UN for international harmony and security. So far, 100, 000 soldiers from 50 armies have taken part. That is a remarkable and encouraging fact.

The UN is under an obligation to demonstrate its independence from SWAPO. I believe that some recent comments by the new UN secretary-general were, to put it mildly, a little unfortunate.

I turn to the vexed issue of Walvis Bay. This 434 square mile enclave is Namibia's only port of any consequence, handling 90 per cent. of all its exports. It was annexed by the British in 1878. It was incorporated in the Cape Colony in 1884, and thus became part of South Africa's Cape Province in 1910.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada made a statement on behalf of the contact group in the General Assembly on Walvis Bay which was read out again by Mr. Cyrus Vance in July 1978. He said:

"The General Assembly will have noted that we have omitted from our proposal the difficult question of Walvis Bay for the reason that we see no way of settling the question in the context of the present negotiations. We feel strongly, however, that the issue should not delay the long sought after independence of Namibia. We consider that all aspects of the question of Walvis Bay must be subject to discussion between the South African Government and the elected Government of Namibia. We have, furthermore, obtained assurances that the strength of the South African forces in Walvis Bay will not be increased during the: transitional period and that Namibians in Walvis Bay will be able to participate in the political life of the Territory during, the transitional period, including by voting in the elections."

I admit to some concern over the contact group's position on Walvis Bay, and I await my hon. Friend's eloquence to persuade me that it is the best possible one. The Walvis Bay issue is thought to be insoluble and it is to be kept on ice until after a settlement.

As far as I have been able to discover, both South Africa and SWAPO appear to accept this, as the issue has not been raised in recent negotiations. Nor, for that matter., has the House ever discussed the subject as far as I know. I cannot think of any historical precedents for granting independence to a country while denying it sovereignty over its only major port. Is that really a satisfactory basis for independence, or will it lead directly to armed conflict? In 10 years, will my hon. Friend be praised for his statesmanship or blamed for his short-sightedness? My concern is that we should not shovel our problems on to others. My concern is that we should get it right.

There have been attempts from the Conservative Back Benches and elsewhere to link a settlement in Namibia with the withdrawal of the Cuban forces at present in Angola. I do not support such attempts, and I trust that the Government do not. Although totally opposed to the unwarranted presence of Cuban soldiers in Angola, I do not believe that their presence justifies South Africa continuing to control Namibia. To suggest that it does may push a settlement in Namibia many years into the future.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why I do not give way to him. I am very short of time.

I also condemn without reservation the deep penetrations that the South African army has been making into Angola from Namibia. Far from safeguarding the interests of the West, as has been claimed, they make straight the paths of the Soviet strategists. What is the Government's latest estimate of the number of South African soldiers and other personnel still in Angola?

The interests of the West lie in having a Government in Windhoek who have been elected by Namibians for Namibians. As The Times said in an editorial on 31 August last year,

"In the long run it is African nationalism itself that will defeat Soviet penetration."

Following the failure of the Geneva meeting in January 1981, there have been calls from many countries for comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa to force a settlement. Such calls have not been supported by all African countries. I was amazed to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary tell the House that the Labour Party was in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa "with regard to the Namibian question". I am convinced that he knows better.

Anthony Eden once said:

"There are two kinds of sanctions, effective and ineffective. To provide the latter is provocative and useless. If we are to apply the former we run the risk of war."

He was right. How does one enforce sanctions? At the end of the day, it is by force of arms, by shot and shell, by maiming and widowing, and by killing South Africans. Logically there is no other way. That is why I for one object to trade sanctions against the South Africans.

There are one or two comparatively minor points that I should like to put to my hon. Friend. Only a few days ago Mr. Kalangula resigned from the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance. Do the Government believe that this will have much impact on the current talks?

Secondly, there was coverage in The Observer last Sunday on the report of the British Council of Churches on Namibia, which suggested that there was a reign of terror gripping Northern Namibia. Has the report been brought to the attention of my hon. Friend, and does he propose to take any action or has he any other comments? Perhaps he will take this chance to condemn SWAPO's terrorist activities in Namibia and their increasing use of arms and ammunition from Eastern Europe? I am told that few guerrillas have been captured by South African forces, but many have been shot, which at least suggests that the South Africans may not always be obeying the Geneva convention.

What is the level of humanitarian aid inside Namibia? What are the Government doing to help? Can they not do more? The Western world cannot and must not shield its eyes from the plight of the people of Namibia, many of whom are living on subsistence level.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to bring the House up to date with the activities of the contact group and will tell us all that he can about the reaction of the various interested parties inside and outside Namibia to the group's latest proposals. He will know better than any other hon. Member that Namibia has moved to the centre of the Southern African stage and is a matter of great concern to the international community. He will recognise, too, that for Britain, with its historic ties with South Africa, Namibia represents unfinished business. The hour is late if a great and historic calamity, no doubt involving powerful forces from outside the region, is to be avoided.

I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) to discuss Namibia. I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend has chosen this subject. He has for many years had a great interest not only in South Africa but in the whole of Africa. As he demonstrated in his clear speech, he has a considerable knowledge of the Namimbian problem. Therefore, I am all the more pleased to be able to listen to his views and I appreciate having this opportunity to make a brief response in the limited time available.

I agree that the debate is timely, but at the same time my hon. Friend will understand that there are limitations on what I can say as we are, as he rightly pointed out, in the middle of a negotiating process. It would clearly be unwise for me to become deeply involved while that process is taking place. However, I shall do my best to answer some of the important questions raised by my hon. Friend.

Our interest in Southern Africa as a whole is to secure peace and stability. It is an African, Western and British interest. Only those interested in exploiting dissension in the area wish there to be a lack of progress to peace and stability. I speak of some members of the Eastern bloc. As my hon. Friend said, we have a long association with many parts of Southern Africa, and therefore a strong interest in there being peace and stability there.

That is why we are now considering Namibia, which has been the subject of international dispute since 1946. Namibia is geographically enormous but has a relatively small and diverse population. It desperately needs peace and stability. The longer the dispute drags on, the more danger there is of instability, not only in Namibia but in Angola. The dispute has international implications. The longer it drags on, the more likely it is that more and more innocent people will lose their lives or have them badly disrupted.

The British commitment is to continue to work vigorously within the contact group of the five Western nations towards a settlement. We strongly believe that we must proceed by negotiation and not, as proposed by other sources, by cutting off all dialogue and contact with South Africa and imposing sanctions, My hon. Friend rightly condemned such action.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I have a limited amount of time in which to answer the important questions posed by my hon. Friend.

We do not believe that it would help the process to impose sanctions. We have a part to play in the five Western nations contact group, which we shall play as fully as we can. We shall work, as our friends in the group will, towards a stable and independent Namibia.

Let me touch briefly on two aspects of the points that my hon Friend raised on the negotiating process. As I told the House on 3 February, the Western five have received replies from all concerned to our revised proposals for the constitutional principles if we believe the constituent assembly might agree to adopt. Agreement has been secured on most points, but certain items raised by the front-line States and SWAPO require further consideration. My hon. Friend was right to relate the matter to the electoral arrangements put forward. They are designed to be as fair as possible to all groups and parties.

We hope that it will not be long before the obstacles are removed and we can move to the second phase which is concerned mainly with questions related to the United Nations' transitional assistance group and the impartiality of the electoral process. All parties to the problem will need to be convinced that the electoral arrangements will be totally fair to all of them and fairly administered.

My hon. Friend referred to the United Nations transitional assistance group. I reiterate that it will feature as a main point in the phase 2 discussions. Its composition, deployment and the nature of the contribution that we may make can be discussed only in the context of phase 2. These are very critical issues in which all the parties are deeply concerned. The sooner we can get on to phase 2, the better it will be for all the parties.

The target of the five remains to begin the implementation of the plan, that is to say, a ceasefire, and the deployment of the United Nations force in Namibia in 1982. Since the United Nations plan allows for at least seven months between the ceasefire and the elections to the constituent assembly, this implies that our objective must be independence some time in 1983.

With regard to Angola and the existence there of Cuban troops, this has been referred to in the House on a number of occasions and I have stated our position. I am glad to have the chance to put this into perspective again.

From the general point of view, we want to see a reduction in tension in the area as a whole. That will help the negotiations on Namibia. Therefore, to this end, Her Majesty's Government hold the view that a positive contribution to reducing tension would be the reduction and withdrawal of Cuban troops in Angola. Having said that, obviously we appreciate that the decision on this is one to be taken between an independent Angolan Government and the people and Government of Cuba. I should also say that the Angolan Government are on record as wishing to see the Cubans depart from their country when a settlement in Namibia is obtained.

Therefore, what my hon. Friend wants to know is the position of the British Government. There is no direct linkage between the existence of Cuban troops in Angola and the Namibian negotiations. But at the same time, as I have already implied, there is, I believe, an indirect relationship in the context of the general need to ease tension in the area. I believe that a process of withdrawal would make a contribution to just that kind of atmosphere.

I take the opportunity once again to condemn South African incursions into Angola as strongly as I can. Equally, I take the opportunity to condemn violence, from whatever source it comes. This points all the more urgently to the need to get a negotiated settlement and thereby to reduce the prospects of violence.

With regard to the important and difficult question of Walvis Bay, I very much appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making—that it is important to try, during the process of the negotiations, to clear up all the potential bones of contention between all the parties. But, as he said, the five have made it clear since 1978 that Walvis Bay should be discussed by the elected Government of Namibia and by the South African Government. There is a genuine problem here. A very complex series of legal issues is at stake. We take the view that it would not help the prospects of getting a successful conclusion to these negotiations if we were to change the policy and approach that we have adopted since 1978. Obviously, we must express the hope that thereafter there will be a satisfactory compromise between the parties concerned. I believe that the position concerning Walvis Bay that I have just expressed is generally accepted by all the members of the contact group.

With regard to the very important question of the United Nations, its impartiality, and the United Nations force, in phase 2 we shall address ourselves forcefully and strongly to the impartiality of the electoral process, on which certain parties need reassurances. This will be one of the key issues to be dealt with. As I have already told my hon. Friend, the composition of the United Nations force will be fully discussed.

My hon. Friend referred to the record of the United Nations in fulfilling Security Council mandates in the world since the Second World War. We need to remind ourselves that, generally speaking, it has a fine record of impartiality which, as my hon. Friend said, ought to be fully acknowledged and recognised. I hope that our friends who are concerned with getting a Namibian settlement will consider this point and look at their record in this field. We have confidence that the secretary-general and his staff will fulfil their tasks in Namibia with the greatest of ability.

I have seen the report of the Council of Churches. I have been able to receive a delegation led by the Bishop of Manchester and have had a thorough discussion with the delegation about its findings during its recent visit. We share its anxiety about violence and, as I have already said, the British Government strongly condemn violence, from whatever source.

With regard to the position of Mr. Kalangula, that is something that we as the British Government and as a member of the five can only observe, save for my saying that it is the task of the contact group to ensure that it consults all those parties, whether within Namibia or outside, who are interested in a settlement, and keeps in the closest possible contact 'with all legitimate interests in that area.

It is through international bodies that we make our contribution towards easing the humanitarian problems that the Namibian people face.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to state the British Government's position and say that we desire a negotiated and peaceful settlement in Namibia as soon as possible.