House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 May 1991

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Does the Leader of the House consider, as I do, that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) owes the excellent staff of the House an apology? At exactly the same time as the hon. Member was saying yesterday that staff were refusing to accept questions--an allegation which I have just heard him repeat today-- exasperated staff in the Table Office were protesting that they had been given no such instructions ; I heard them say so. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government of this country are more than happy to answer questions in debates on subjects that involve the spending of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on NHS patients in NHS hospitals, whatever they are called, so that the Government can take the credit when the benefit of the reforms comes to the fore?

Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government are happy to answer all questions on the NHS because their record is an extremely creditable one. I believe that our policies ensure not only substantial funding, but the effective delivery of services within that funding. It is noticeable that the Labour party has no such policies, which is why it resorts to inaccurate side issues--it is obvious that that is all it can do.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Last week, the Leader of the House said that he could not find time this week for a statement on the World in Action programme about the Larry Goodman empire. In the light of evidence that Government servants have been in receipt of gifts from Mr. Goodman and agriculture in Northern Ireland is suffering as a result of the way in which his empire has spread, will the Leader of the House re-examine the subject and attempt to find time for such a statement when we return after the recess--or are we waiting for the inquiry in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. MacGregor : Obviously, I cannot find time for that in the week after the recess, but I shall discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Column 938

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : When my right hon. Friend considers finding time for a debate on procedures in the House, will he also consider the question of information to hon. Members about what is taking place in the House because I was rather concerned to see early-day motion 861 on coal mining subsidence? [That this House congratulates the honourable Member for Sherwood on persuading Her Majesty's Government to include the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill in this year's parliamentary programme ; congratulates Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for Energy on making the parliamentary time available ; notes that this Bill completed its Second Reading on 4th February of this session and all its remaining stages in the House of Commons on 22nd April ; and is surprised that this information does not appear yet to have reached the honourable Members for Llanelli, Brent East, Clydesdale, Birmingham, Perry Barr, and Preston, all of whom signed Early Day Motion Number 78, condemning Her Majesty's Government for failing to introduce the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill after it had completed all its stages in the House of Commons.]

That reminds us that five Labour Members, including a Front-Bench spokesman, continued to press the Government to take action on coal mining subsidence even after the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill passed all its stages in the House.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. I was interested to see that six Opposition Members were urging the Government to do something that we had already done and that had taken up a great deal of parliamentary time, which suggests that some Opposition Members are not exactly following what is going on.

The Government have acted on that matter and I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), as does the early-day motion, because that subject has been a great interest of his and he has had a great deal to do with the fact that we have acted so swiftly on the matter.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is there to be a statement on the further responsibilities which are apparently to be given to the Government Chief Whip? We are told in the newspapers that he is to be the Government's troubleshooter--Mr. Fixit. If that is the case, is not it necessary to have a statement because surely, with the way in which the Government are facing a crisis virtually every day, the Chief Whip's job will be virtually redundant, as he will be so busy occupying himself with his second job?

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that Conservative Members feel that it is totally unnecessary to have a debate because we know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is doing an admirable job and I am sure that he will continue to do so. I am also sure that he is glad that anything to do with handling the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is not one of his responsibilities.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the wonderful news that inflation has reduced by a huge amount to 6.4 per cent. seems not to have reached the Opposition? Therefore, will he consider giving time at the next available opportunity for a debate on the success of

Column 939

the Government's economic policies and for a comparison of our policies with those of the Opposition, which revolve around spend-tax, spend-tax, spend-tax?

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with him, and I am sure that when the House gets back after the recess we shall concentrate upon such matters.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : I wonder whether the Leader of the House would consider early-day motion 868, tabled by myself and 134 right hon. and hon. Members yesterday,

[That this House expresses deep concern and sympathy at the death of Jeff Jones, a Rhondda miner, at the Wem Tern licensed coal mine at Pencoed, Mid Glamorgan, and asks the Secretary of State for Energy to hold an immediate inquiry into the safety standards at this and other licensed coal mines and to publish quarterly statistics on safety inspections in those mines.]

May I ask for an early debate on the issue, and especially on the subject of safety in mines? I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, together with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, would like to join me in recording our sympathy to the widow June and daughters Gemma and Jade at their home in Stanley road in Gelli, Rhondda, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I am sure that it will be a comfort to them to know that we share their grief in this tragedy.

It is always a sad day when there is a death in a mine and it is a constant reminder of the days when deaths occurred in the mines every week and sometimes every day, especially in Wales. I pay tribute to all those who burrowed with hands, picks and shovels to reach Mr. Jones but who found, after 22 hours, that they had worked in vain. This is yet another reminder that safety in our mines must always be a top priority for any Government.

Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I come from a coal- mining village and therefore I very much share the sentiments that he has expressed. I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathy to the relatives of Mr. Jones and to pay a tribute to the work that was done yesterday, alas to no avail. The Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate has responded, as it always does in the case of a fatal accident, by initiating a full and thorough investigation. We must now await the outcome of that investigation, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter so that it enables the whole House to express its sympathy in this tragic incident.

Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West) : Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of having another debate on the national health service, specifically on the distribution of spending within the NHS? Is he aware that, within the North West Thames region, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire comprise 45 per cent. of the population, but benefit from only 32 per cent. of spending? The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that a Labour Government would provide no extra money for the NHS, and that the Labour party will fight to prevent redistribution of money away from London to where people actually live. My constituents and others would suffer the effects of such Labour policies.

Column 940

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that my hon. Friend will have other opportunites to make his point in the House, but I cannot say when we shall be able to have another debate on the NHS in Government time. My hon. Friend has made the important point, which should be made constantly, that the Opposition have made it clear that they will not be able to spend any more on the NHS than we have.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : Is it not remarkable that we have not debated the Gulf since 21 January--a few days after the outbreak of war? If the outcome of the war did not justify a debate, surely developments in Iraq since then have shown that a debate is long overdue.

Mr. MacGregor : As I have said, I am aware of the desire of many hon. Members to debate this matter, but we must wait for an appropriate time. There are many pressures on Government time between now and the summer recess.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : I wonder whether we could have a debate on the disgraceful, unspecific and cowardly attack on a highly respected public servant, the Hon. David

Gore-Booth--particularly when that attack has been co-ordinated by people who have at heart not the interests of the United Kingdom, but the interests of a foreign country, which has quite rightly been the subject of widespread criticism in the House.

Mr. MacGregor : I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to that at Question Time today. I was unable to be present, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, SAI in my constituency is likely to close. That is a disgrace, because it is the most efficient fertiliser plant in the United Kingdom. Jobs are important in Leith and throughout the United Kingdom. Can we have a debate about that issue at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise a debate on a specific plant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, he will have to do so in other ways.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : Further to the point of order that I raised on Friday, when I urged Treasury Ministers to come to the House to justify and extend the excellent policies that have led to a dramatic fall in the rate of inflation, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate so that the House may fully understand that the Government have reduced inflation from 10.5 to 6.4 per cent.? Has my right hon. Friend noted that that rate compares with an average of 15.5 per cent. under the previous Labour Government? The present Government understand that beating inflation is the only way to remove a socially divisive disease. That underlines our estimate of caring. By allowing inflation to rip when it was in office, the Labour party damaged the people who could least afford to be affected. This Government care and a Labour Government cannot deliver their promises.

Mr. MacGregor : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Reducing inflation to levels comparable with those of our major competitors is the Government's overriding

Column 941

priority. I am sure that there will be opportunities throughout the summer and beyond, as inflation continues to come down, to make the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : Will the Leader of the House consider having an early debate--perhaps immediately after the spring recess--on the problems facing the car industry? Grave concern has been expressed about the effect of Government policies on the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should arrange such a debate?

Mr. MacGregor : I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have a heavy legislative programme to complete in Government time. There are many opportunities for debates outside Government time, and that is how the subject will have to be pursued.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : The debate on 7 June should be on the future government of London, as many people regard the proposed Greater London authority as bureaucratic, bolshevik and unwanted. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed Greater London authority would have more elected members than the old Greater London council? Is he aware that London Labour councils have the worst record for the collection of rates and for empty council houses, whereas Conservative councils have the best school records in London?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes some effective points. As I said, I do not believe that the people of London want a return to the GLC.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement to the House on the continued infiltration of the British security industry by organised crime, especially in the leisure industry? More people are killed and injured each year in Britain by rogue bouncers than by rogue dogs. Every day of the week, someone is injured or even killed by bouncers whose companies have been infiltrated by organised crime. The Secretary of State should make a statement on regulating the industry to drive bouncer companies and those who are involved in organised crime out of legitimate interests such as security.

Mr. MacGregor : I shall not go into the issues or respond to the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made, but he asked for a statement. I do not know whether a statement would be appropriate, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in the Chamber and will have heard what he said.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : May I wholeheartedly support the request that was made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and by some of my hon. Friends for a further debate on the provision of health care so that we can set out again and again the Government's superb record in the past 12 years, so that I can draw attention to the brand new £18 million community hospital in Cannock and to the increased employment opportunities at the Mental Health Foundation for Mid-Staffordshire NHS trust, so that I may expose the shroud -waving hypocrisy of Opposition Members and so that the Labour party may formally, on

Column 942

the Floor of the House, retract the disgraceful allegations contained in the notorious leaflet that it issued at Monmouth, which suggested that NHS trust hospitals were opting out of the NHS?

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that there will be many opportunities for my hon. Friend to make his effective points about the considerable progress in his constituency and about the Labour party's policy. There will be opportunities, therefore, to continue to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the allegations that were made in the leaflet to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : May we have a debate to explore why the Government acquiesced last Saturday in allowing General Augusto Pinochet to arrive at British Aerospace's private aerodrome at Hatfield? On a day when millions of people are mourning the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, can the Government have forgotten that Pinochet organised the assassination of the elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, and in the 1970s and 1980s murdered thousands of decent people in Chile? Is it now Government policy that, after a set number of years, the murder of a head of state is a sanatised, politically acceptable act, as long as the perpetrator is coming here to buy arms?

Mr. MacGregor : I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I cannot see scope for a debate on the issue in the forthcoming week.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : Will my right hon. Friend give further urgent consideration to the possibility of having a debate on a national minimum wage? Although the Labour Fabian Society has made it clear that such a policy would cost 800,000 jobs, and although we all know that the figure would be twice as high, does not it remain a key policy of the Labour party, and should not we have a chance to debate it as a matter of urgency in the House?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is clear that that proposal will result in the loss of a very considerable number of jobs. It is interesting that the Fabian Society now corroborates that fact and gives its own estimate. We shall have many opportunities in the weeks ahead to continue to make these points, and I note the embarassment of the Labour party every time the proposal for a national minimum wage is raised.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar) : The Leader of the House said last week that it would be inappropriate to have a debate on the future of ICI, on the ground that

"That would be a matter for the takeover panel".--[ Official Report, 16 May 1991 ; Vol. 191, c. 433.]

Last Friday, the takeover panel gave the green light to Hanson, the asset stripper, causing a great deal of concern in the country at large and to many of my constituents who work for ICI. Will the Leader of the House consider the provision of time to debate this important matter--we are dealing here with the leading manufacturer and second largest exporter in this country--or does he intend to wait for the recess, when Hanson can act without our having any democratic input whatsoever ?

Mr. MacGregor : There is no question of our waiting for the recess. We do not have a situation in which action of

Column 943

the sort that I outlined might have to be taken. In my comments last week on referrals, I mentioned not only the takeover panel but also two other bodies. We are not in a situation in which that action is triggered. That being the case, it would not be appropriate to have a debate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : I support the suggestion that we should have a debate on the visit of General Pinochet to this country. That would give us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Government neither received General Pinochet nor conferred on him an order of knighthood, as happened during the term of the last Labour Government, when President Ceausescu visited this country.

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point that he has made.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : May I ask the Leader of the House to accept that, following the savage attack on Rucksana Khan, the vast majority of people understand that if effective action is to be taken against dangerous dogs it must be based on a national dog register ? Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the Government's Bill is introduced it will be debated as quickly as possible, and that it will be framed in such a way as to enable the House to take a clear decision on the establishment of a national dog register ? Will he give an undertaking that, if an amendment to this end is moved, Conservative Members will have a free vote so that they may support something that clearly now has the support of a vast majority of the British people ?

Mr. MacGregor : I have already expressed my own view. I do not believe that the issue to be addressed by the Bill--an issue about which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement shortly--is related to a dog registration scheme. It is important that the Bill should focus on the emergency measures that are necessary to prevent, if possible, any further tragic incidents such as the one that involved the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That is the importance of getting on quickly with this measure.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : As my right hon. Friend has not yet decided the business for 7 June, may I commend to him the idea of arranging a debate on the need for a national lottery, for which there is a great deal of support among Conservative Members?

Mr. MacGregor : I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it is unlikely that we shall be able to debate that matter for a whole day, as many other issues have been raised. My hon. Friend knows very well that there are other ways in which he personally can pursue the matter.

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) : As the Leader of the House will be aware, there has been only one item of Scottish legislation this Session. Therefore, as has been pointed out already, we have had very little opportunity to debate Scottish issues. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the Scottish economy, the Scottish national health service, or primary school testing in Scotland, all of which are matters of policy in which there is considerable public interest? It is a very long time since there was any Scottish debate on the Floor of the House, and there has certainly been no debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Column 944

Mr. MacGregor : I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he recognises that there are many opportunities for those issues to be raised in other debates in the House. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : May we have a statement on the reporting of national health service matters to Parliament and in particular on the question of trusts? May we have an assurance in that statement that there will be no distinction in the way in which questions on health service trusts are answered as opposed to questions about other hospitals that remain in the national health service? At the moment, questions about the internal workings of hospitals can be answered fully by Ministers. May we have the same assurance about questions on health service trust matters?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House and making the wrong point if he tries to suggest that somehow trust hospitals are outside the NHS. My right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to answer questions fully on the health service.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the safety of fishermen and fishing vessels? If that is not possible, may we have in the very near future--perhaps in the first week after the recess--a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on the regulations governing the safety of our fishermen? For some years I have been seeking to persuade the Department of Transport to invoke regulations allowing for the provision of immersion suits on fishing vessels. The Department of Transport has refused that sensible measure. I discovered yesterday that the European Commission is to introduce a draft directive on the safety of fishermen that will include among many other things the provision of immersion suits on all fishing vessels above a certain size. Why is the European Community leading us? The Government should have taken such a decision years ago.

Mr. MacGregor : I am not aware of that particular Commission proposal, if indeed it is such at this stage. However, I will raise that point with my two right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : Will the Leader of the House find time after the recess to allow the Government to repudiate the disgraceful behaviour of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who has been parading her pro-apartheid views around South Africa, including-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has not been here very long. Normally, if that kind of attack is made on another hon. Member, prior notice is given about it.

Mr. Hain : It may be a case of post-prime ministerial senility.

Mr. MacGregor : That question shows that the hon. Gentleman has a great deal to learn in this House. I certainly do not intend to find time to respond to a charge of that kind.

Column 945

Dangerous Dogs

4.27 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker) : With permission, I would like to make a statement about dangerous dogs.

As we are all aware, there have been a number of recent attacks by dogs which have left their victims very badly injured. The first of those was the horrific attack on 8 May by two pit bull terriers on Mr. Frank Tempest, which has left him with severe facial and other injuries. The second was an attack on a two-year-old child by a pit bull terrier owned by her grandparents. The third incident, which took place last Saturday, left a six-year-old Bradford girl, Rucksana Khan, very seriously injured. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of those dreadful attacks and our wishes for their recovery. Those most recent attacks were of a different degree of seriousness altogether from the great majority of dog-biting incidents.

All three were carried out by American pit bull terriers. The American pit bull terrier is a cross-breed dog, specifically bred for fighting and, in many cases, trained to be aggressive. As has been tragically shown, it is capable of vicious and sustained assault without warning or provocation. Once a pit bull terrier has started an attack, it has been shown to be impossible for full-grown adults to prevent the dog from causing horrific injuries.

The public are increasingly concerned about attacks by those vicious dogs and are entitled to look to the Government to take action to tackle the problem. I have therefore decided to bring before the House as soon as possible this Session legislation which will ban the breeding and ownership of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred especially for fighting. Also included in the ban will be the Japanese tosa, a dog bred for fighting which, apparently, can weigh up to 17 stone. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we have taken action to ban the import of those dogs, as from midnight last night.

I emphasise that the ban will initially apply only to those breeds of fighting dogs, but it is clearly important to prevent new and dangerous breeds coming in to replace dogs which have been banned from domestic ownership. I understand that there are three other possible breeds in the world today.

The legislation will therefore include powers to add other types of fighting dogs to those which are banned.

It is essential to rid the country of the danger from such dogs. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, they have no place in our homes. Owners of those fighting dogs may be able to return them to their country of origin.

It has been put to me that it would be possible to make those dogs safe by neutering them. I am advised that that policy is unlikely to be effective. I am ready to consider further evidence on that point with experts, including the veterinary profession. If that will not be effective, the ban on dogs bred for fighting will mean, sadly, that those types of dogs have to be put down.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the veterinary profession have also suggested that there could be some specific and very tightly drawn exemptions to the ban, and I will be considering that suggestion. I am also considering the question of compensation for owners whose dogs are destroyed.

Column 946

There were many attacks by dogs last year. The types of dogs responsible for those attacks are numerous, and include breeds such as alsatians, rottweilers, terriers and collies. Many of those attacks, unfortunately, can be laid at the door of irresponsible owners. The Government have always recognised that. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 made the law to control dogs more effective. Courts can now guarantee the destruction of any dog which has shown itself to be dangerous and, as a result, it is quickly put down. That is an important step forward.

Last year, the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs and proposed a number of measures to bring about the safer control of dogs and powers to penalise the irresponsible owner. The response to the consultation paper shows an encouraging measure of support for such action. That includes a tougher criminal offence to penalise dog owners, whatever the breed, who fail to keep their dogs safely under control in public, as well as a power to allow a court to specify the control of a particular dog of any type. That could include muzzling.

The Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House yesterday that the Opposition would co-operate in getting such measures on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will confirm that in his response today.

Dogs, Mr. Speaker, can provide companionship, friendship and comfort, and they do that for many people, but there is a clear distinction in the public's mind between the domestic pet and a dog that is bred to fight and kill. I hope that our proposals to ban those most dangerous of dogs will therefore command the full support of the House and pass quickly into law.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : May I first join the Home Secretary in offering the Opposition's sympathy for the victims of dog attacks--about 10 a month--who have suffered over the past two years, particularly those to whom our attention was drawn this afternoon? May I go on to welcome the proposal to ban the import of specified categories of vicious dogs and the Government's intention to legislate for the prohibition of their ownership?

The Home Secretary will not be surprised to receive our support for a policy to reduce the number of attacks by such dogs. During the Committee proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill in March 1990, the Opposition made comprehensive proposals that covered all that he has said today. Those proposals were rejected by the Government and voted down despite Opposition support.

The Home Secretary asked for the Opposition's specific agreement to facilitate the passage of necessary legislation. Of course he has that assurance. The problem is that none of us can be clear what the Home Secretary means by the intentionally imprecise phrase "such legislation", other than the specific ban on a limited number of species. Other action is necessary, but the Home Secretary simply says that there may be legislation providing tougher penalties for owners whose dogs are not kept under proper control. He says that there could be a law requiring muzzling.

Today's statement was disappointingly vague, and will be seen as inadequate by all who have already complained that the Government are not acting with sufficient speed or resolution. This is no time for doubt or prevarication. With 10 serious attacks taking place each month, action is

Column 947

urgently needed, and I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what that should include, in addition to the general prohibition announced today.

Of course, the responsibility for preventing attacks must lie with the dog's owners. My questions are about the Home Secretary's willingness, or will, to take the necessary action to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly.

First, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce stringent safety rules requiring all owners of potentially dangerous dogs to keep them in secure conditions and to allow them into public places only under such control that the safety of the public is assured? That must usually mean their being kept on leads and muzzled.

Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are some breeds of dog which, although they are occasionally dangerous, it would be wrong to prohibit altogether? Nevertheless, we believe that there must be some safety standards for their ownership, so I ask the Home Secretary to introduce substantial penalties for any infringement of the safety rules that I have described. Will he provide the necessary resources to ensure that those rules are enforced?

Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman place an obligation on owners of specified potentially dangerous breeds to take out third party insurance cover so that those whom such dogs damage can be compensated? In one other respect, the right hon. Gentleman was less than precise. Why are rottweilers not to be included in the prohibited category? They are often advertised as having an aggressive temperament, and in the past they have been responsible for vicious attacks. One was responsible for an attack on two police officers only yesterday.

Finally, the Home Secretary knows that virtually all authorities on the care and control of dogs insist that protection and prohibition cannot work successfully without the introduction of a national registration scheme. [ Hon. Members-- : "Why?"] Such a scheme would be good for the welfare of dogs as well as for the protection of human beings. It would reduce the number of dogs obtained casually and callously abandoned within a few days. It would enable the Government effectively to enforce their other proposals. Why does the Home Secretary object so much to the idea? He was a great enthusiast for a register of people so as to implement the poll tax ; why should we not have a register of dogs to protect the welfare of animals and the safety of citizens?

Mr. Baker : I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the broad thrust of what I have said about our proposals to deal with fighting dogs. I understand that he believes in and supports our proposal to prohibit not only import but ownership. I welcome that. I welcome, too, the right hon. Gentleman's support on other matters relating to general legislation on dogs, and I should make it clear that I intend the Bill to make it a criminal offence, with a severe penalty, to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. That would apply to all breeds. I also hope that the Bill will clear up the definition of the word "control" and allow the courts specifically to require muzzling of certain dogs in some circumstances. That can be effectively policed. I hope that we can agree on those matters, too.

The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked about compulsory insurance. I have some sympathy with the idea, and I understand that many household insurance policies cover injuries caused by owners' dogs. However,

Column 948

measures relating to insurance may be rather more complicated than the other measures, and may not be ready in time for the Bill, which I hope to introduce shortly after Whitsun. I do not rule out the idea for further legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether rottweilers should be included. In defining the group of dangerous dogs bred to fight and kill, I sought to draw a clear distinction between such dogs and other dogs. Rottweilers are not bred to fight and kill. Of course, I discussed the matter with the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the veterinary associations yesterday. They said that there was a clear distinction between dogs bred over decades, or in some cases centuries, to fight and kill, and other pedigree dogs.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman argued again for registration, and I believe that a scheme will be in the Labour manifesto when the election comes. I do not believe that a general registration scheme would have had any effect on the dreadful incident last weekend. If that dog had been registered for £5 and had had a computer number on its collar, it would not have been prevented from attacking that little girl. Moreover, the argument for a registration scheme is that it would identify the owner with the dog. In all the recent incidents, the identification of the owner has not been the problem. The owners have been known in each case.

I am glad that I shall have the support of the right hon. Member and the Labour party on much of the legislation, although I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his last point.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Next Section

Home Page