| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 689
The second small change that I should like to see is for the district council--which is the licensing authority in Northern Ireland--to have the power to grant or to refuse a licence. If that power were exercised wisely and well, it would deal with the problem once and for all, because the council could react to local pressure. That would also cover the problem raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in respect of high-rise flats. A council could exercise control in that regard as well. If we had followed that route, we would be in a much happier situation than we are this evening.I hope that the Bill will prove to be purely temporary and that the United Kingdom will eventually catch up with the existing practice in Northern Ireland. I had hoped that I could improve on the legislation, but sadly that has not proved possible. However, hope springs eternal in the human breast, even in regard to dog registration, so with a wee bit of luck, we will be back here in another year or two, whoever may be in government, when we will perhaps have wiser counsels and better legislation.
9.20 pm
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), and particularly to his remarks about insuring dogs according to their breed and to where they live. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly highlighted the importance of clause 3 and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) emphasised the importance of enforcing tenancy rules. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give great consideration in her response to the points made by hon. Members in all parts of the House about common parts, which may include estate roads, and the corridors and stairwells of high-rise blocks such as those in my constituency. Almost every hon. Member who owns a dog has confessed to it. I almost feel that we should extend the Register of Members' Interests to our pets. I admit to the ownership of a border terrier and shall watch with great interest the progress of the Bill tonight. Most of us in this country are dog lovers, although I detect the odd shake of the head from members of the Opposition Front Bench. I record also my interest in Battersea dogs home, which does so much for the welfare of strays and of dogs that have been ill-treated or abused by their owners.
I believe that right hon. and hon. Members faithfully represent the broad balance of views held by their constituents. That ranges from the school of thought that dogs can do no wrong to that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), which can be described as the incinerator tendency--those who exhibit real hostility towards dogs. In between, there are those who are irritated by dog fouling and concerned about the health risks that it creates, as well as the risk posed by dogs wandering the streets out of control. They are concerned also about the dangers that are created when dogs are kept in the wrong types of places.
I understand entirely when people get a large dog to protect themselves, but when they bring such an animal home to their high-rise flat and then allow it to run wild in
Column 690
the corridors, or allow it to become a latchkey dog, such people contribute to neurosis in a dog, which can lead to the dangers that concern us tonight.There are also killer dogs. The Bill is concerned particularly with measures to control fighting dogs that are sadly and too frequently the killers not just of other dogs but of people. All dogs can be dangerous, and some often are. One or two breeds--the number may be higher--are not only trained but bred to be dangerous. The Bill goes the right way about dealing with those bred for that purpose--they are not the sort of dogs that should be kept as pets.
I have been involved in a number of animal issues in the House--none more important than the measures taken to stop dog fighting. When one prevents dog fighting one is conscious that the dogs may go somewhere else, and if they go into family ownership or are bred from they can contribute to the problems that we face.
Just about every animal welfare organisation agrees that fighting dogs should not be pets. They can turn into aggressive killers without warning-- we have seen too many examples of that. It is right to phase them out, but it is also right to take the lesser option and deal with them by muzzling, by neutering and through the exemption and registration introduced in the Bill.
I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends--and, indeed, the lawyers of this country--well in seeking to define the breeds and types of dog covered by the Bill. No doubt they will be able to do it. I especially welcome the insurance measures.
I emphasise that, in taking the lesser step, we must also take the responsibility for doing so. If there should be a tragedy with an exempted dog it will be no good our turning round and saying that it is the Government's fault, that something more should have been done. We are advising the Government that we want the lesser step to be taken ; I think that we are right to do so, but we must acknowledge that we are also taking the responsibility for that step. The Bill also deals with other types of dog. Other breeds can be dangerous--sometimes because of overbreeding or inbreeding, sometimes because of their ownership. The insurance route is the right way forward, because the actuarial calculations will be made by insurance companies. If they deem somebody not to be a fit and proper person to own or control a dog, or if they consider somebody's home not to be a fit and proper place for that dog to live, they will either refuse insurance cover or make it so expensive that it will be almost impossible for the person in question to take out insurance. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary included insurance as an element in the list of requirements that he will introduce by regulation--with which I entirely concur. But I did not hear him say that there would be marking of the dog, a collar tag or something similar so that the public, the police and other authorities could easily see that insurance had been taken out. That is an important consideration and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it when she replies to the debate.
The debate will soon move on to the question of registration schemes. I make no secret of the fact that I have always supported registration schemes. Indeed, in the days when such things were possible, my first revolt in the House, when I went into the other Lobby, was when I supported the measure to retain dog licences. I favoured registration for two reasons. The first was that registration
Column 691
serves a purpose in rescuing strays. I still believe that. Battersea dogs home runs a voluntary scheme whereby a chip is implanted in the scruff of the dog's neck, giving a unique number that can be screened in police stations to identify the dog's owner. Perhaps we could encourage that practice through voluntary schemes. The other consideration is owner control--the control of owners who act irresponsibly in charge of dogs. On that matter, I believe that we are heading in the right direction. Whatever we like to call it, we are heading down the route of compulsory insurance for dogs. We are starting with fighting dogs, but I believe that we will continue with dangerous dogs and then it will be a short step before we bring it in for other dogs.All dogs can be dangerous and some often are. We are going for the "often- are's" and shortly I believe that the Government will be persuaded to go for the "also-can-be's". Before we get there, we will have achieved precisely that responsible dog ownership that we are seeking, through the insurance route, which will be in the best interests of dogs and their owners.
I support the Bill and I urge that we eventually extend the insurance requirement, because this nation can be judged by the way in which it deals with its pets, especially dogs. The Bill will be good for people and good for dogs, and I commend it.
9.30 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : I shall be brief. When the debates on the Bill started today, I had no intention of voting in the No Lobby against the timetable. However, I have heard a number of speeches, one or two of which certainly lacked clarity, in which preposterous comments were made. However, because of the lack of clarity, I cannot ascertain exactly what was said until Hansard appears and it will not appear until after the Bill has completed its passage. That problem was again demonstrated during the Home Secretary's speech, when he appeared to select brindle Staffordshire bull terriers for attention. Perhaps the Home Secretary is not aware that there are a variety of colours within that breed and that his comments will cause some anxiety among those who fancy pedigree dogs, especially Staffordshire bull terriers, because he appeared to like brindle Staffordshire bull terriers but not others. It is rather sad that in a matter that affects the burning interests of many thousands of people--the Staffordshire bull terrier is one of the most popular breeds in Britain-- the Home Secretary's lack of preparedness should cause him to give anxiety.
Because of the atmosphere of rush and panic, a number of hon. Members who are interested in dogs are increasingly concerned. After all, the Home Secretary criticised a Labour Government for not banning American pit bull terriers in the 1970s. However, at that time it was only surmised that they would be coming here to be used for fighting, which did not develop until the early 1980s. As I said in an intervention on the Leader of the House, I asked the Government to ban the import of American pit bull terriers in the early 1980s, because evidence was clearly available to show that they were being used for the very sordid practice of dog fighting, to which a number of hon. Members have referred.
The Government refused and I urged them that if they were not prepared to ban the import of American pit bull
Column 692
terriers, they should at least have the decency to assist animal welfare organisations, especially those that have an investigative role such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, by informing them of the names and addresses of people who were importing the dogs. Make no mistake, people who were importing American pit bull terriers at the beginning and in the middle of the 1980s were almost invariably serving dog fighting.Once again the Government refused because that clashed with their philosophy, which is to sweep away regulations and leave everything to the individual, to the free market, to freedom and liberty. The result of that careless, lackadaisical and utterly irresponsible approach is the panic stations represented by a Bill of this type. I do not want to take a long time but one or two matters need to be mentioned. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would first clarify the issue that I mentioned regarding Staffordshire bull terriers before people start having them neutered all around the country. Secondly, there is the question of clause 4. It is already unsatisfactory that people who are not fit to have dogs, who abuse them and are found guilty of relevant offences in court may not be banned from keeping a dog. That is provided byclause 4.
However, sometimes other people in the same household should be banned from keeping a dog. When the police arrive at the home of the chap who has obtained a pit bull terrier for unsavoury reasons, he will say that it is his wife's, his partner's, his son's or his mother or father's. They will be banned from keeping a dog, but he will not. There has been too much of such evasion, so we must ensure that the verdict of the court is accompanied by bans that mean something and by a household ban where necessary.
The Government have been foolish in saying that the Bill will not come into effect until 30 November. I estimate that a significant proportion of at least 45 per cent. of pit bull terrier bitches in Britain--that is 45 per cent. of the total, as bitches come into season twice a year--will be mated within the next two or three months to produce litters suitably matched to dogs of other breeds. That will allow people who practice this so-called sport of fighting to evade the requirement in the Bill.
Banning pit bull terriers will be of little use if cross-breeds from American pit bull terriers are to be used. The Government are giving the dog-fighting fraternity the latitude offered by the time arrangements of the Bill. That is another example of the incompetence and stupidity with which they have handled the matter in the past decade.
9.36 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : We all know how much people in the United Kingdom love pets. Nowhere is the British love of animals more demonstrated that in our continuing affection for dogs and cats.
It is a correct belief that dogs and cats are good for us--people in hospital who have pets with them are known to recover more quickly, their blood pressure lowers, they are happier and calmer and they recover more quickly. We are all aware of the quiet companionship that a pet offers someone who lives alone. A mentally handicapped child is
Column 693
stimulated and made happier by a pet. Someone who is dying is made happier by the company of an animal. We are right to love our pets and they repay us a thousandfold.Most people look after their pets--often better than they look after themselves--and give them the finest food. I have often thought that pearls before swine was surely the description of an early porcine hors d'oeuvre. Cats dine delicately on boneless salmon, while their owners masticate on mackerel.
But there is another breed of people who seek and obtain another kind of household animal--one bred not to divert but to destroy and not to defend but to go to war. The owners are at fault, but so often their animals must suffer.
The Bill is necessary, but I am sad that we must have a Bill to control household pets. It is a great dishonour on ourselves as human beings that we are not able to choose and care for animals that are good for society rather than a negative element. Yet in my constituency and in many other parts of the United Kingdom, owners have chosen and breed dogs to hurt their neighbours. I have a folder full of such examples just from my constituency.
Where I differ with the Opposition, who have expressed similar concern for animals, is over their grave disservice to the House of suggesting that a register is the perfect way forward. Surely, we do not want unnecessary bureaucracy. A national registration scheme would have to cater for 7 million dogs and would cost about £42 million a year, financed by fees. In Belfast, fewer than 50 per cent. of owners have complied with such a scheme.
There is a concept known as risks management which involves the identification of risks. Are we to go overboard and pretend that there are risks related to dogs ? Could not the £42 million be better spent on children, the elderly, the handicapped and the sick ? In our love for animals and our overwhelming desire for animals to be well cared for, let us not be too silly. We should consider that people matter, too.
The national budget is, of necessity, finite. The register, such as it is, must be kept to the minimum so that it costs the minimum to maintain and obtains maximum compliance from owners. I support the Bill.
9.42 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : I hope that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the House will forgive me if I do not comment on all that has been said, but I lack the time to do so.
Opposition Members tried to castigate us for--[ Hon. Members :-- "Government Members."] I am sorry, I meant Government Members--I was anticipating events.
Government Members complained that we criticised the Home Secretary for listening and responding. We were doing nothing of the kind, but were saying that it was a pity that he did not do so before he spoke on 22 May. Our complaint was that he spoke first and thought afterwards. The problem with the Home Secretary is that he is never there when the consequences of what he has planned come about. We fear that his rush to legislate will leave problems for his successor.
The Home Secretary himself mentioned the Sunday People, so instead of making up what Mr. Mandelson said
Column 694
yesterday, I shall reflect on what the Home Secretary said. In 1981, when he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Secretary regaled the House with the promise that the country would be cabled by 1990. To give him credit, he was the first Minister to see the promise, potential and need for the most modern communication system. It was not introduced, but by then he had gone.The right hon. Gentleman then went to the Department of the Environment, where he is credited with persuading the then Prime Minister that the poll tax was the best replacement for the rates--that was also mentioned in the Sunday People. We all know where that expensive farce ended, but no matter, the right hon. Gentleman had yet again vanished.
The right hon. Gentleman reappeared as Secretary of State for Education and Science to lay the groundwork for what as laughingly known as educational reform, but by the time its consequences hit classroom and teachers, he had vanished. He had legged it to become chairman of the Conservative party. We all remember his clarion call at last year's Conservative party conference :
"Let him who has no stomach for the fight depart."
The Chancellor, the deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House all did so and then, lo and behold, the Prime Minister herself did. As Robert Harris said in yesterday's Sunday Times :
"after talking tough about pit bull terriers for a week or two, our Kenneth has suddenly dropped his bag of toffees and is sprinting for the schoolyard gate as fast as his little legs will carry him. It's typical of Ken,' one Tory MP was quoted as saying last week, he never finishes anything he starts.'"
That is the right hon. Gentleman's track record ; now let us consider his record in relation to dogs. When we consider the brilliant record that the right hon. Gentleman brings with him to the Bill, how can we have any confidence that the Home Secretary, in his latest and perhaps his last Government job, has it right now? As late as last October, the Government were telling us that nothing more needed to be done in relation to dog control, and that we certainly did not need a national dog registration scheme. They said that the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which made it an offence to have an unmuzzled, ferocious dog at large in a street, park or open public place was enough to deal with the problem, as the figures showed.
There were 80 prosecutions in 1988, of which 43 succeeded. That shows that the 1847 Act did not quite solve the problem, but a year later there were 93 prosecutions, of which 60 succeeded. Therefore, as the Government then argued, the 1847 Act provided the solution to the problem, and they said that if that did not work there was always the Animals Act 1971, which allows prosecution for injury or damage caused by dogs in England and Wales. I should like to be able to tell the House how that worked out, but I cannot, because the Home Office does not collect information centrally on those civil offences. A month ago, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister claimed that all was well and that there was no need for a change in the law. That song has been sung from the Dispatch Box for at least the past two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) reminded the House tonight, the then Home Office Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and derided a call by my hon. Friend that specific action should be taken against American pit bull terriers. The Minister asked :
Column 695
"When does an American pit bull terrier cease to be an American pit bull terrier? A dog with one American pit bull terrier parent is partly an American pit bull terrier. However, would it fit that definition for the purposes of prohibition orders?"--[ Official Report, 15 June 1989 ; Vol. 155, c. 1188.]That is why we have so little faith in the Home Secretary who is panicking legislation through the House tonight.
Then things changed--
Mr. Devlin : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Then things changed. Clark Kent, also known as the Prime Minister, decided that there was enough public concern for him to be decisive and to take action. On 21 May, he signalled from the Dispatch Box that stern action would be taken, at last, to control dogs. On 22 May, the Home Secretary announced from the Dispatch Box, "death to all pit bull terriers", and he was backed by the Prime Minister. As the days passed, the pit bull terrier that the Home Secretary mimicked on 22 May became the Pluto of today. He now says that the pit bull terriers need not die, but that the Government will try to price them into an early grave by making the charges for exemption certificates, neutering and registration as high as possible, with a minimum of £150 an animal. I know that the Home Secretary does not like to be reminded of the fact that he stood at the Dispatch Box on 22 May growling about putting down 10,000 pit bull terriers. Within days, he had changed his mind and backed away.
I hope that the Minister of State will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked earlier, at least share with the House the process by which it was decided not to include rottweilers in the special categories. It is estimated that there are 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country compared with 100, 000 rottweilers, 100,000 doberman pinschers, 100,000 Staffordshire bull terriers and about 250,000 German shepherd dogs. Will the Minister share with the House the details of the decision-making that enables the Home Secretary and his advisers to make a distinction between a dog that is born for fighting and a dog that is bred for aggressiveness? The Home Secretary has not persuaded the House about that distinction. There is virtually no distinction between bred for fighting and bred for aggressiveness.
I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and others, with which the Home Secretary had some sympathy when he was kind enough to allow an intervention from me. My hon. Friend referred to dangerous dogs in tower blocks, in maisonettes and in back gardens--in other words, not in what one would normally understand to be public places. The Post Office has told me of a 56-year-old woman whose right ear was torn off when three Alsatians attacked her in the driveway of a private house. She suffered other bites to the head, arms and legs, and underwent emergency surgery. Under the Bill, such an incident would not be caught under the definition of public places. In my constituency, there are several families whose lives, children and cats are terrorised by a rottweiler living down the road which constantly leaps over-- [Laughter.] That is no laughing matter. It leaps over the garden fence and as recently as last weekend, a cat had to be attended
Column 696
by a veterinarian and there was an £80 bill-- [Laughter.] Is that a laughing matter? I hope that Hansard will record those who are laughing.Can the Minister assure the House that when the police seek a warrant under the powers in clause 3, they will be able to call on the services of RSPCA inspectors and of trained and equipped dog wardens or veterinarians? It cannot be expectable to accept an ordinary beat police officer to attend to a dangerous dog in answer to a summons. Even police officers who have been trained in dog handling are not experienced in handling dangerous dogs that are out of control.
When the Minister of State replies, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider seriously the proposition in new clause 3 that people who are injured by dangerous dogs whose owners cannot be traced or identified should be able to make a claim for damages to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The Minister of State will be aware that that issue has gone to judicial review because the board has claimed that it does not have such powers at the moment.
Will the Minister of State also confirm that no genetic test is available at the moment to determine absolutely the make-up of a dog? I am advised that it will take up to eight years to produce such a test. How will those people responsible for making decisions about the exemptions reach their conclusions?
It is regrettable that this debate has not been about encouraging responsible dog ownership. The vast majority of people who own dogs are responsible and accept the obligations of such ownership to ensure the enforceable control that a modern society requires. The Bill goes some way towards that and that is why we shall support it. However, it will take a Labour Government to do the job properly. 9.50 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : Apart from the last rather deplorable contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), we have had a helpful and positive debate this evening. In the time available, I will do my best to respond to the many points that have been made.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) for his contribution. I differ from his views in one respect. We believe that the Bill relates to pit bull terriers and those dangerous dogs that are bred for fighting and that cannot at any stage be considered to be safe irrespective of whether they have been friendly in the past.
We are grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield had reservations about the Bill as he wanted a cull of dogs. Had we had such a cull of dogs, I suspect that the press would have created much fuss and there would have been many clarion calls and all sorts of things written about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Battersea dogs home is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), and we welcome his support for the Bill. I will respond to his point about the common parts of flats and stairways, and we shall be including either tattooing or tagging.
Column 697
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) made helpful points about the costs of a registration scheme. We were also grateful for the helpful and supportive comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I confirm that we are engaged in consultations with the Association of British Insurers about the form of insurance that we will introduce.I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is concerned about the Lynch family. As a good constituency Member, he has supported that family for some years since the sad death of Kelly Lynch. I understand his points and extend my sympathy to Kelly's parents. I hope that the Bill and the hon. Gentleman's support of it will go some way towards rewarding his constant work for those parents.
In response to the hon. Member for Londonderry, (Mr. Ross), I can state that we have considered the Northern Ireland registration scheme. However, we note with interest that that scheme still commands only 50 per cent. support from the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) need not worry about Staffordshire bull terriers. I shall refer to clause 4 in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the date of the introduction of the Bill allowing puppies to be bred. As from 31 July, when the legislation will be on the statute book, it will be an offence for dogs to have puppies, and such puppies will be caught by all clauses of the Bill. [Interruption.] I refer not to all dogs but to banned or dangerous dogs.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wanted me to answer a number of points. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in the response
Mr. Hattersley : Will the Minister of State give way?
Mrs. Rumbold : I cannot give way, because I have other questions to answer.
On the support of veterinary associations, of course it is not for me to commit parliamentary support of organisations such as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA. However, I can tell the House that those bodies have welcomed the principle of the Bill to rid the country of pit bull terriers and fighting dogs and also the controls that my right hon. Friend is proposing to apply to exempted dogs--that is, neutering, permanent marking and compulsory insurance. All those matters have been supported.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the security of conditions in which pit bull terriers are kept. It is unnecessary to define or set out the security of conditions in which clause 1 dogs should be kept. The Bill does that. If a clause 1 dog were to escape, the owner would be subject to criminal proceedings. Anyone who risks his clause 1 dog escaping is courting the same severe penalties, including imprisonment. It is his responsibility to ensure that the dog is secure.
On the point about compulsory insurance, I have been asked whether it should be a requirement for all dogs to be covered by third party insurance. All dog owners are liable under the Animals Act 1971 for any damage that their pets
Column 698
may cause. They are therefore recommended to protect themselves and their neighbours with third party insurance. Because of the particular risks that fighting dogs represent, we are requiring the owners of such dogs that have been exempted to prove that they are covered in that exemption.A register will simply record that a dog exists. A certificate of exemption records that certain action has been taken over a pit bull terrier--that is, that the dog has been neutered, marked permanently and is covered by insurance. Those are very good safeguards. I was grateful to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) because it was extremely supportive, particularly his affirmation that the Police Federation is completely behind my right hon. Friend's Bill. My hon. Friend asked about clause 4 dogs. There is no power in the Bill to include German shepherds in clause 1, as they are not fighting dogs. If there is a need to take action against other breeds of dogs, it will be under clause 2 where there are, quite properly, less restrictive controls. On my hon. Friend's point about strays, the term "stray" is used in section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is a common term which apparently requires no definition.
On his point about aggravated offences, and the police, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked whether there will be a problem in establishing whether an offence was aggravated. That should not be a problem, as clause 3(1) clearly defines that an aggravated offence is committed when a dog that is out of control causes injury. That should be a simple matter of evidence.
I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about the costs of having dogs destroyed. That is why clauses 4(4)(b) and 4(5) contain provisions to recover costs. That is by a well-tried drafting formula and we hope that it will be thoroughly effective. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for his helpful and supportive points. He asked whether minors should be allowed to be in charge of clause 1 dogs. We are considering the conditions that should apply to certificates of exemption and we shall bear my hon. Friend's points in mind. We have already anticipated that point in clause 3(2), which places an onus on a dog owner to ensure that it is in the charge of a responsible person. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has other points on which the Government are not likely to be quite so helpful, but that debate will occur later.
The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) referred to puppy farms. Home Office Ministers have always said that they support measures to end puppy farm abuses. I expect an announcement to be made shortly about the introduction of such a measure. I acknowledge, too, the other points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the definition of a public place. Clause 8(2) covers all places to which the public have unrestricted access. They include many common areas in and around tower blocks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned. Therefore, the criminal offence in clause 3 does not apply to anything that happens in back gardens, which are private places.
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to the Order this day.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Column 699
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House-- [Mr. Boswell.] Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to the Order this day.Column 700
Dangerous Dogs Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified --
Motion made, and Question proposed ,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dangerous Dogs Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.-- Mr. Boswell.]
10 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : When I opposed the timetable motion, I made it clear that I supported the overall objectives of the Bill but that I very much deplored the way in which it was being rushed through the House. [Interruption.] It appears that we are in the midst of a convention of small order waiters. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are now under the guillotine. However, he has a perfect right to make a speech on the money resolution.
Mr. Banks : The more I listened to the Second Reading debate the more I realised that the House is making a grave error in rushing the Bill through. There are so many unanswered questions. I am certain that other unanswered questions will arise out of the money resolution.
The Secretary of State referred to the compensation for which the money resolution provides the wherewithal. It provides compensation for those owners of pit bull terriers and any other designated owners who have their dogs put down. I understand that it is £50--£25 for the cost of having the dog put down and £25 to compensate owners for the loss of the dog. Many dog owners would consider that £25 compensation was tantamount to an insult, given that they might very much love their dog but might not be able to afford--if they decided not to have their dog put down --all the other costs arising out of neutering, registration and the other matters to which the Secretary of State referred. Those matters and proposals are supported by all responsible dog owners, as well as by the Opposition and the animal welfare organisations.
The Secretary of State is prepared to provide compensation for those owners who decide to have their dogs put down and to give a small sum of money to those who thereby lose their dogs, but it is very cruel that he is not prepared to give anything to those who might wish to go along with the legislation, because they are responsible owners, but who are unable to afford all the veterinary and registration costs that are tied up with this legislation. The Secretary of State is not encouraging responsible dog ownership. Those who are prepared to have their dogs put down and to take £25 do not, I believe, fall into the category of responsible dog owners. Responsible pit bull terrier owners will be those who are in the terrible dilemma of wanting to go along with the legislation but who cannot afford the various costs.
The Secretary of State must accept that this is retrospective legislation. When these people bought their pit bull terriers, none of the illegalities that will arise from 31 July onwards was on the statute book. Those people will be penalised. This is retrospective legislation. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State should reconsider this matter. We cannot do it now, but if we had had a proper Committee stage, these matters could have been thoroughly considered. Proper amendments could have been tabled in Committee. These issues could have been
Column 701
raised, and perhaps we would have found out the costs involved. I do not know what the costs are. The Home Secretary does not know. I do not believe that anyone can accurately say how many pit bull terriers there are. However many there are, it will be difficult to find them because people will keep them behind doors, undetected, as long as possible. With a Committee stage, we could have found out about all those matters.On the face of it, it seems that a large part of the costs will fall on responsible dog owners. They want to go along with the Bill's terms but cannot afford to do so. They will be given a cruel choice. I hope that, in responding to the debate on the money resolution, the Home Secretary will say that he will at least consider
introducing--perhaps in another place--a scheme that allows an element of compensation to be paid to those responsible dog owners who want to go along with the legislation but, unfortunately, cannot afford to do so. Those owners will be left with the dilemma of either disobeying the law or having their animal put down.
10.5 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : The explanatory and financial memorandum states :
"expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Bill"
shall
"be paid out of money provided by Parliament."
I wish to speak on the money resolution because there will probably be changes to the Bill that bring costs on the taxpayer. I did not have an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I make no complaint about that because my points deal directly with the prospect of costs.
Twenty-odd years ago, my youngest daughter, who is a pretty and attractive girl, was on a camp site near the Wirral in Cheshire. She was attacked by a large, savage dog and sustained serious injuries. Thankfully, because of the skilled medical treatment which she received, today she is an attractive young lady. I assure the House that, at that time, my wife and I and other members of my family were very worried. To this day, I still remember with horror my feelings when taking her to hospital, because of her appalling condition. I believed then, and I believe now, that registration and all the other provisions that may or may not emerge from the Bill would not have had any impact on those events. The dog was tethered on a long lead. My youngest daughter, like other members of the family, was fond of animals. Not realising the hazard and the horror, the child did what many children do and went towards the dog, which attacked her.
Some of the speeches made earlier, particularly on the Bill's financial implications, were pertinent to those circumstances. We want to ensure that we deal with the problem of dogs that have savaged and attacked people. The Bill in its present form deals substantially with that matter. It lays down a framework to deal with incidents of the kind that I described, which brought terrible horror to my family and me. I commend the Government for introducing the Bill.
On the money resolution, no one has mentioned in detail the fact that children may recover from physical injuries, but what of the mental injuries that may remain? At the time of that incident, my wife and I wanted to do
| Next Section
| Home Page |