| Home Page |
Column 159
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a tradition of this House that, when the Government are represented in matters such as ANZAC day, invitations are extended to the Official Opposition party of the day? Why was that not done?
Mr. Speaker : I am not aware that the House is being represented and therefore that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made the point that we--[ Hon. Members :-- "Can't hear."]--ought to get the facts in relation to what is happening in relation to the so-called gun for Iraq. How can we get the facts when the Secretary of State concerned refused to answer questions in this House on the basis that there might be or could be or possibly would be a court case pending? You said, Mr. Speaker, that there was no question of sub judice. How can we put questions about getting the facts when the Secretary of State concerned refuses to answer questions? How can we put it to the Government when they are not prepared to give us the answers?
Mr. Speaker : How the Secretary of State answers questions is a matter for him. The content of his answers is not a matter for me.
Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to return to a matter which other hon. Members have raised. However, the first half minute of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was almost entirely inaudible on the Conservative Benches. The question of the microphones must be addressed as a matter of emergency.
Mr. Speaker : I believe that there is a written answer on that matter today in Hansard.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : I seek your advice on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Among the many amendments which the House will debate tonight, several have not been selected--
Mr. Speaker : Order. May I stop the hon. Lady there? That is not a matter for me. When the House is in Committee, the hon. Lady should raise the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means when he takes the Chair. I do not select amendments for Committee stages of Bills.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for the Environment to go to a constituency without informing the relevant Member? Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for the Environment visited my constituency today? He sneaked in unannounced and issued a press release excusing his poll tax capping of Calderdale.
Mr. Speaker : Certainly it is a convention of the House that, when we go to the constituencies of other hon. Members, we always inform them. We have a very heavy day in front of us.
Several hon. Members rose --
Column 160
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) rose - -Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : On a point of order--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I have called Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson : I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It is a recognised fact, which has been written and commented on, that on several occasions, wholly inadvertently, the Prime Minister misled the House because--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I hope that the word was "inadvertent".
Mr. Wilson : It was definitely "inadvertent". I am referring to poverty statistics. The Prime Minister repeatedly--and, I have no doubt, in good faith--came to the Dispatch Box and quoted statistics that, it has now been accepted, were diametrically wrong. The corrected statistics have appeared in Hansard in answer to a written question. However, Ministers came repeatedly to the Dispatch Box and used the figures to boast that the rate of economic improvement of the poorest in this country was twice the national average. Now that this has been diametrically denied by the Department concerned, surely Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who used the false statistics are obliged to come to retract them.
Mr. Speaker : I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on such procedural matters. He must find other ways of dealing with it.
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Donald Thompson : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : This is getting contagious.
Mr. Thompson : I apologise for intervening, Mr. Speaker, but, as a result of the accoustics of the House, I did not hear you call the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), is it not right and proper that those who call themselves shadow Ministers should inform us when they visit our constituencies?
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us always stick to the conventions of the House, which are of long standing. We should always as a matter of courtesy inform hon. Members if we go to their constituencies.
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : I call Dr. Cunningham.
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The High Court has just announced that it has agreed that the 21 poll tax- capped Labour local authorities have the right to have the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment reconsidered and examined by judicial review. As the matter is related to the subject down for debate tomorrow, and as in this case,
Column 161
unlike the fiasco of the Iraqi gun, a case is proceeding, is it in order for the subject to be discussed tomorrow, and can we expect Ministers to answer questions on it?Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) rose --
Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I should need to look carefully at the Opposition motion to decide that matter. I was not previously aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. As a general principle, I believe that it would be in order for him to proceed, bearing in mind that he should not mention anything that is sub judice. It seems to have been a rather lucky choice.
Mr. Hayes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely all that the High Court has done is give leave for a determination of the facts ; it has not as yet determined any facts.
Mr. Speaker : I have already told the House that I have no knowledge of the matter. I shall need to look into it.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, 650 unsolicited and unwanted boxes were delivered to the House. I believe that such
Mr. Speaker : Order. We dealt with that matter yesterday.
Mr. Rowe : But I am raising a totally different point.
Mr. Speaker : How different can it possibly be?
Mr. Rowe : I believe that such deliveries constitute a serious security risk. It is highly likely that they could put us all in danger. In any event, are you satisfied--
Column 162
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is the same point. I said yesterday that I was looking into the matter, for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I will take one more--Mr. Knapman.
Mr. Knapman : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be an error in the Order Paper today. In question No. 15, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was asking about Government sponsored schemes for training under-21s. Is it not more likely that the hon. Gentleman meant to ask about training for the over-21s?
Mr. Speaker : I have no idea. Let us now move on the the ten-minute rule motion. Mr. Amess.
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Very well. Dr. Paisley.
Rev. Paisley : When replying to the various points of order that have been raised today, you commented, Mr. Speaker, that it was a convention of the House for Ministers visiting the constituencies of hon. Members to make it known to the Members in question that they intended to visit their constituencies. May I ask you to call the attention of Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office to that convention, as they never abide by it and certainly never inform Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies when they intend to make such visits?
Mr. Speaker : I was not referring just to Ministers. I was referring to a convention of the House that should apply to all.
Column 163
Dogs Bill
3.42 pm
Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the keeping of certain breeds of dog ; to provide for a licensing scheme in respect of those breeds ; to provide for increased penalties for the ill-treatment of dogs and for connected purposes.
I freely admit to being a dog lover, although I do not at present own a dog. I have a young family who keep us fully occupied, often behaving as though they were wayward puppies. It is with sadness that I feel it necessary to introduce this Bill, which deals with a serious matter that should be widely discussed.
We are a nation of animal lovers, particulary compared with the way in which the people of many other countries treat their animals. Many people in Britain look after their animals wonderfully well. In certain respects, some of them have a higher regard for animals than they have for human beings. But there is a section of the population who treat animals, and dogs in particular, in an utterly despicable fashion.
Cruelty to animals is intolerable in a civilised society and I hope that the House will view with alarm the RSPCA's recently published statistics, revealing an increase in animal cruelty. Of 2,026 convictions last year, 1,131 involved cruelty to dogs. Owning a dog is a considerable responsibility, and is not to be taken lightly. My Bill attempts, no doubt in an imperfect fashion, to halt the trend in cruelty. It is in no way directed towards dogs but, rather, towards irresponsible dog owners. I propose that offences involving cruelty to dogs would result in an obligatory disqualification, similar to that imposed in drink-driving offences. Such disqualification could be made automatic in all cases involving cruelty to dogs under section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
I propose a minimum disqualification period of three years. There would be an obligatory disqualification for owners of dogs, subject to orders being introduced under the excellent measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. There would be obligatory life disqualification from keeping any animal on a second conviction within 10 years of the first conviction for cruelty. There would also be power in severe cases to commit defendants convicted of cruelty to dogs for sentence at the Crown court. In such circumstances, maximum sentences would be extended from six months to five years imprisonment.
Over recent months, there has been widespread concern about the number of dog attacks on children and adults. In the past year, there were some fatalities as a result of such attacks. There is a clear lack of confidence in the ability of certain owners properly to control the behaviour of their dogs. Of course, there are differing views of what could be termed dangerous dogs, but there can be little doubt that certain breeds are strong candidates--for example, rottweilers, German shepherds, pit bull terriers, dobermans, Staffordshire bull terriers and bull terriers. I am quite certain that it is not beyond the wit of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with the Kennel Club and the RSPCA, to draw up an agreed list of potentially dangerous dogs. Because certain dog owners have not looked after their dogs properly, some horrific attacks have resulted in
Column 164
terrible injuries being inflicted upon people. Perhaps to balance that statement, I should draw to the attention of the House an attack last month on a six-year-old girl, when her pet Alsation jumped on her and threw her about like a rag, with the result that she needed 120 stitches and considerable plastic surgery.Sadly, violence in society today is commonplace. The aggressive behaviour of certain individuals is increasing and is being reflected in the behaviour of some irresponsible dog owners. During a 12-month period in which dog attacks caused 20 deaths, researchers in the United States found that most were caused by so-called defence breeds. Further concern has centred on the cross between a pit bull terrier and a Rhodesian ridgeback. All animals in the study were kept by young people between the ages of 18 and 25. Sadly, half of them had served prison sentences. Also, 40 per cent. of the owners had committed violent crimes and half the dogs that carried out the attacks had been cruelly treated and bore the scars of such cruelty. Clearly, violence on the part of dog owners is likely to encourage similar behaviour in their dogs.
The Bill would require the breeders of potentially dangerous dogs to acquire a licence through a register compiled by a local authority. The register would note to whom the dogs were sold, and it would be a condition of the breeding licence that such details were provided annually. Such a list would serve a useful purpose in tracing the owners of potentially dangerous dogs and crossbreeds. The register would be welcomed by responsible breeders and help to improve the esteem of a slightly tarnished activity. The police would also welcome such a measure, as it would help their investigations when attacks are carried out.
The Bill would also require owners to muzzle potentially dangerous breeds when they are not on a lead in public places or not in their habitual quarters--that is, their keepers' private premises. Section 3 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 should be amended so that no animal, in particular a dog, should be sold to a minor.
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok) : What's wrong with miners?
Mr. Amess : I am referring to a minor in the sense of a young person between 12 and 16.
It is utterly indefensible that a 13-year-old child can purchase a rottweiler. That may seem harsh, but before even a hamster is purchased, it is absolutely essential that the parent gives full consent. Children may love animals and may be eager to obtain all sorts of species, but they can soon tire of what is involved in giving the care and attention that is needed when looking after all sorts of pets.
Finally, the Bill would require the owners of potentially dangerous dogs to have some form of third-party insurance as an obvious protection for the general public, who are always in danger of such attacks. I am not suggesting that the measures that I have briefly outlined provide all the answers to the difficult problems that we face in controlling potentially dangerous dogs. However, I believe that they provide a foundation for constructive legislation on what is a growing problem.
A dog may be a man's best friend, but a man is not necessarily a dog's best friend. I hope that the House will redress that by supporting this sensible and constructive Bill.
Column 165
Question put and agreed to.Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. David Alton, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Terry Lewis, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.
Dogs
Mr. Davis Amess accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the keeping of certain breeds of dog ; to provide for a licensing scheme in respect of those breeds ; to provide for increased penalties for the ill-treatment of dogs for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
Column 166
Orders of the Day
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
[Second Allotted Day]
Further considered in Committee
[ Mr. Harold Walker
in the Chair ]
3.52 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Having seen the selection list I note that two important amendments to new clause 4--amendments (aa) and (bb)--have not been selected ; nor has amendment (ee), which would exempt Scotland from the legislation. If we are not to have the chance to consider those amendments, will there be other opportunities for debating those issues?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker) : I am required not to give reasons for my selection or non-selection of amendments. I expect that the debate will be a wide debate and if the hon. Lady is fortunate enough to catch my eye, I shall give sympathetic consideration to allowing her to cover the substance of the matter that is reflected by her amendments.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I have heard what you have told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) about amendments, but should like to seek your guidance. My amendment--amendment (u)--is the only amendment that deals with the grounds on which an abortion can be obtained. It adds the word "serious" to new clause 4 which has been tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Is the fact that my amendment has not been selected a bar to it being raised during future debates on the Bill? Would it be in order for it to be referred to on Report--subject, again, to selection?
The Chairman : All that I can do is offer the hon. Gentleman the advice that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). He has raised this matter with me. I assure him that I am not being facetious when I say that I take his point seriously. The selection of amendments on Report is a matter for Mr. Speaker. No doubt his attention will be drawn to what has been said, the representations that have been made about today and those which the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly make in future.
New clause 4
Amendment of law relating to termination of pregnancy
Column 165
.--(1) For paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 (grounds for medical termination of pregnancy) there is substituted--"(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and thatthe continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family ; or
(b) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated ; or
(c) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and thatthere is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.".
Column 167
(2) In section 1(4) of that Act, for "to save the life" to the end there is substituted "(a) to save the life of the pregnant woman, or(b) to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health,
and, in the latter case, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty- fourth week.".-- [Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.- - [Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
The Chairman : With this we may consider the following amendments to new clause (4) : (a), in line 3, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert eighteenth'.
(b), in line 3, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert
twenty-eighth'.
(c), in line 3, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert twentieth'. (d), in line 3, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert
twenty-sixth'.
(e), in line 3, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert
twenty-second'.
(f), in line 6, at end insert--
(aa) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman ; or'. (g), in line 6, at end insert--
(aa) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman ; or'. (x), in line 8, leave out from woman,' to or'.
(i), in line 9, leave out
that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and'. (j), in line 9, leave out twenty-eighth' and insert twenty-fourth'.
(s), in line 11, at end insert ; or
(d) that the pregnancy is due to an act of rape or incest.'. (h), in line 11, at end insert--
( ) In section 1(2) of that Act, after "(a)" there is inserted "or (aa)" '.
(k), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 16. (y), in line 12, leave out from Act,' to end of line 16 and insert
after "practitioners" (in line 3) the words "and to time limits" shall be inserted.'.
(l), in line 15, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert eighteenth'.
(m), in line 15, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert twenty-eighth'.
(n), in line 15, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert twentieth'. (o), in line 15, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert twenty-sixth'.
(p), in line 15, leave out twenty-fourth' and insert twenty-second'.
(q), in line 16, at end insert--
(3) For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted--
"(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.".'. (r), in line 16, at end insert--
( ) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (presumption that child is capable of being born alive), for "twenty-eight" there is substituted "twenty-four".'.
(dd), in line 16, at end insert--
| Next Section
| Home Page |