The following is the text of the speech I prepared for yesterday's full council meeting. I didn't get to give it unfortunately - the meeting was 'guillotined' immediately before my speech (by pure coincidence of course!).
I would welcome people's feedback on this issue.
Text of Speech
Let me begin by saying that I welcome the discussion we are having around this white paper today.
Members may recall that I asked a question on the issue of dog licensing not so long ago in this council chamber, though it was with regard to the question of whether the re-introduction of dog licensing would serve as a useful deterrent against the barbaric practice of dog fighting.
As this example shows, there are a number of broad themes that may be discussed when examining whether the re-introduction of dog licences should be seriously contemplated.
Would dog licensing help to combat dog fighting and the use of dogs as weapons for example?
This would depend entirely on the degree of enforcement that came with it. I view people who engage in behaviour such as dog fighting or using animals to attack people as being among the vilest members of our society. Clearly without the strictest enforcement, there is no way that such criminals would bother to buy licences for their dogs. Only decent and law-abiding dog owners would do so.
We then come to the related question of animal welfare. Would the re-introduction of dog licensing help to stop harm coming to dogs, either through evil intent or just pure ignorance? It may scratch at the surface of the problem, but once again, unless rigorous enforcement takes place, it is highly unlikely that negligent or wilfully cruel dog owners would bother to buy a license.
If we are seeking to address the problems of animal neglect and cruelty, it would arguably be better to introduce compulsory dog registration at a local vet and making pet insurance compulsory for dogs.
These steps would help to ensure that all dog owners have automatic access to medical treatment for their dogs and advice regarding their care, and registration with a vet would ensure that all dogs are registered somewhere and could be subject to health checks and monitoring where necessary.
Compulsory micro-chipping of dogs would be a similarly interesting idea.
We then come to the question of revenue raising in order to finance initiatives concerned with the problems of dog fouling. This is indeed a huge problem but we must be careful not to cast all dog owners as being responsible for the ignorant minority who do not clean up after their dogs.
Blaming all dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible minority is like blaming all pedestrians for the anti-social minority who drop litter in our streets.
The vast majority of dog owners are indeed responsible and look after their dogs properly – and clean up after them – and we must work together with such dog owners to help to address the various problems caused by bad dog owners.
Much better enforcement and far harsher penalties for people who do not clean up after their dogs are urgently required.
I do not discount the possibility that the re-introduction of dog licensing, if done correctly, could be beneficial in some respects, but I feel we need to look at the bigger picture and consider a number of other steps that could be taken that would result in the problems I have discussed being addressed, whilst keeping to an absolute minimum the disruption caused to decent and law-abiding dog owners.
