House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jun 1991

Mr. MacGregor : There is a distinction on many issues between giving powers and deciding that the moment has come to operate or use them. We have made consistently clear all the way through our position on dog registration.

Paragraph 3 of the timetable motion brings Report stage, if amendments are passed which need to be

Column 614

reported, and Third Reading to a conclusion by 4 am. I do not think it is necessary for me to consider all the remaining provisions in the timetable motion.

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way ?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, but for the last time.

Miss Hoey : Does not the Leader of the House agree that many members of the public wish to see the Bill approved as soon as possible, but, given our long holidays, they do not accept that we have to debate such an important issue at 4 o'clock in the morning ? Is not that nonsense ?

Mr. MacGregor : I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the long recess is a holiday for all hon. Members ; clearly, it is not. Every time a suggestion of that kind is made, someone picks it up. I shall respond by pointing out that the vast majority, if not all, hon. Members have pretty short holidays and work on other matters during the recess.

When deciding the date of the recess and considering how quickly we can reach it--I have already warned that it is a considerable time away, and that earlier suggestions in the press were not correct--I have to take into account the pressures, not least from the hon. Lady's hon. Friends, to rise in time to enable hon. Members to go on holiday with their families. If the hon. Lady wishes to check that, she has only to consider the representations that are made to me if and when the House sits into August.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacGregor : I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Dickens : That is generous of my right hon. Friend, especially because he said that he would not give way again.

As surely as night follows day, the timetable motion will be secured. Would we not do ourselves, you, Mr. Speaker, and the ladies and gentlemen of the press a favour if we accepted the opening speech, stayed in our places and voted on the timetable motion? We would save about three hours of our own time if we did that. Would it not be much more sensible for all hon. Members to resist the temptation to make a speech on the timetable motion?

Mr. MacGregor : In response to my hon. Friend's remarks on my generosity in giving way, I was about to say, "How could I resist?" I notice that he has not resisted the temptation or followed his own advice of not speaking on the timetable motion.

I am anxious to reach my conclusion. We want to get on to the substance of the Bill, so I shall not deal with paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 which are fairly technical and straightforward.

Paragraph 8 is the usual provision for disposing of outstanding questions when a knife falls ; when that time is reached, the question will be put forthwith on proceedings then under discussion, together with other questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on which the knife has fallen. Again, as is usual with timetable motions, paragraph 8(3) provides that the putting of such questions shall not be interrupted.

Paragraph 10 is the standard provision that allows the House, should hon. Members wish, to move faster than

Column 615

the timetable motion otherwise provides. I have noted that a number of hon. Members have suggested that they believe that the Bill will go through speedily. In fact, that may occur. I believe that the timetable motion provides a reasonable amount of time.

I have described the principal provisions of the timetable motion. I believe that the motion is necessary for a well-ordered debate on this extremely important Bill, and I commend it to the House. 4.15 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : The guillotine motion is a perfect example of how, when Governments are falling apart, they do stupid things. Rarely has a Leader of the House had to struggle, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to convince even his own supporters of the necessity for a timetable motion for this legislation. Rarely has so thin a case taken so long to expound. Surely the lesson of the past 13 years is that rushing legislation through the House is not a good way to prepare laws that affect so many people. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken any notice of the hon. Member for

Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he would have thought long and hard about the Football Spectators Act 1989 and what happened to that, and about the poll tax and other legislation that the Government steamrollered through the House.

It is unprecedented for a Government to timetable a Bill that has the support in principle of the Opposition. We want the Bill to reach the statute book, not least because we have consistently argued for a series of measures to tackle the problems of stray and dangerous dogs. Even allowing for the fact that the Government decided, on their own account, to guillotine these discussions, it would have been more helpful had the right hon. Gentleman had some discussions about the nature of the timetable motion before it appeared on the Order Paper. The Government are more concerned about disguising their embarrassment and hiding away, in the middle of the night, the opposition of their Back Benchers to what they are --or, more accurately, are not--doing in this legislation, than they are about ensuring careful and considered discussion of the Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the Government have an abysmal record on dealing with dangerous dogs. As he also rightly said, the provisions in this legislation could have been on the statute book more than a year ago if the Government had really wanted that. I share the view of some Conservative Members that the Government are acting now, as they have on other occasions, out of expediency and in response to some of the criticisms of the tabloid press, and that they are failing comprehensively to deal with the problems.

People have been attacked, savaged and bitten by many different breeds of dogs for a very long time. The problem of fighting dogs, and pit bulls in particular, is just the latest manifestation of what has long been a widespread problem. The Bill is inadequate to deal with the whole of the problem because of the narrow way in which it has been drafted.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : It appears that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. Had he done so, he would realise that, under clause 3, it will be an offence if a dog is dangerously out of control in a public

Column 616

place. The problem to which he averted--that is, dangerous dogs of any sort--will come under the provisions of that clause.

Dr. Cunningham : At first glance, the hon. Gentleman may be right. However, the Bill fails to say how dogs in public places are to be controlled, how a dangerous dog is to be defined and whose word is to be taken on what is a dangerous dog. Superficially, the hon. Gentleman may have a point, but further consideration of the proposals shows that the legislation is hopelessly inadequate.

Mr. Michael J. Martin : Criticism comes not only from the tabloid press. People up and down the country are seriously worried about this matter. No matter what mistakes we have made--I include the Government in that--something should be done today. If that means discussing the matter until 4 am, we should do so, because people are terrified in their communities and in their homes.

Dr. Cunningham : No one dissents from my hon. Friend's view that something should be done. Along with my hon. Friends, I have argued for a long time that something should be done. The responsibility for the delay rests not with the Opposition but with the Government. If my hon. Friend is angry about the delay, he should direct his anger at the Government.

As my hon. Friend must know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and the shadow Cabinet have agreed to an accelerated procedure for the consideration of the Bill, taking its Second Reading one weekend after publication, because we know that there is a need not only to act, but to act more effectively and comprehensively than we will be able to do under the proposals in the Bill. Therefore, it is nonsense to have guillotined debate. The Leader of the House has said that, effectively, we have two days in which to debate the Bill. Why should we not have had two normal days in which to debate it? Why push the discussions into the middle of the night and the early hours of the morning? There is no need for that, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

The Cabinet is terrified that, as in the past, many Government supporters will vote for a dog registration scheme. That is what the guillotine motion is all about. The Government know--as do people outside the House--that, if there were to be a free vote, the House would vote overwhelmingly to introduce a dog registration scheme. That is the reality, as the record shows.

I say to the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, that if he wants to organise a free vote on the Government Benches on this matter, even if it is in the early hours of the morning, we shall respond. That would be an honest decision by Parliament about what should be done. We shall not get an honest decision from many hon. Members who vote tonight, because they will be voting under the duress of a three-line Whip, again enforced by the Government Whips. We want to make that clear to the public, and I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people understand the procedure very well.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend agree that most people understand very well that the Government's opposition to a dog registration scheme means that they are against a scheme that might have helped the young woman in Bradford who was left with a pit bull terrier, and

Column 617

given her proper guidance about the control of such a dog? A dog registration scheme may enable such accidents to be avoided, and might have saved Rucksana Khan.

Dr. Cunningham : I believe that a dog registration scheme will not, of itself, solve all the problems, but it will contribute to their solution. That is the important point. As the owner of a very large but good-natured dog, I know how easily people are frightened by dogs. That is not surprising, considering the lack of control of dogs in public areas such as parks and open spaces. No one has the responsibility for supervision or control. The Government have provided such legislation for Northern Ireland, but, despite the Bill being pushed through today, until we have a registration scheme here, our problems will remain.

The Leader of the House referred to the voting record. He seemed to say with some pride that the introduction of a dog registration scheme had been discussed and rejected. That is so, but on 14 June 1989 it was defeated by only 13 votes because of a Government Whip. On Report stage of the Environmental Protection Bill on 13 March 1990, the scheme was defeated by only 12 votes, and on Commons consideration of Lords amendments on 29 October 1990 it was defeated by three votes when the Government brought Ministers back from the four corners of the globe to vote against it. If the right hon. Gentleman questions whether in reality the House wants a dog registration scheme, let him allow the free vote that many Conservative Members would like, and it would certainly go through with a significant majority.

Mr. Marlow : The Government have a responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, for dealing with problems relating to dogs--and to dangerous dogs in particular. The Government make proposals for that, just as they make proposals in other areas. This is Government legislation. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be a free vote on this particular Government legislation?

Dr. Cunningham : I well recall the hon. Gentleman urging his friends into the Lobby over many years to support Government legislation that, subsequently, many of them dearly wished that they had never set eyes on. On the poll tax legislation, the hon. Gentleman was one of those who subsequently repented, so I do not accept his argument.

There may not be a consensus on the Government Benches in favour of the dog registration scheme. I hazard a guess that there may be a greater consensus on the desire to muzzle the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). We are concerned that the House should be allowed openly and candidly to reach a decision after proper debate. That is why I believe that there should be a free vote.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My right hon. and hon. Friends and I take a rather jaundiced view of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) standing at the Dispatch Box and suggesting that somehow he can organise an agreement across the Chamber. We know that the Opposition cannot deliver on such agreements. How often have they agreed when debates should finish, and how often have those agreements not been honoured ? As

Column 618

a Scottish Member, I know how often the Opposition have failed to deliver. That is why we do not trust the hon. Gentleman or his Whips to deliver.

Dr. Cunningham : That was an incredible intervention. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand about delivering on a free vote, he does not understand very much. We are content that all my right hon. and hon. Friends should have a free vote on the Bill. It is not a question of delivering. It is a question of knowing what the House would really like to do, if it was not prevented by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench.

Limited and weak though the Bill is in some respects, and belated though it is, we want to see action taken--which is why we co-operated in bringing the Bill before the House and why, despite our serious reservations, we will not oppose the timetable motion.

4.28 pm

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Croydon, North-West) : On an occasion such as this, there is bound to be a great deal of indignation--but I venture to suggest that much of it is false, because both main parties have pushed through guillotine motions on many previous occasions. The Bill is important. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on acknowledging the problem, acting with speed, listening carefully to all interested parties, and bringing before the House quickly legislation that ought to command the support of most or all right hon. and hon. Members. I believe that the British public would also want to thank him.

I support the Bill and the guillotine motion. It is important to pass this legislation quickly. All right hon. and hon. Members will have been shocked and outraged by the reports we have read in recent weeks of attacks by dangerous dogs on children. My own constituency, in Croydon, is a typical built-up south London area. There is hardly a garden bigger than a tenth of an acre, and there are very few green spaces, yet far too many dangerous dogs are kept there.

There is no room in an urban area for rottweilers, pit bull terriers or any other such dogs. The owners deserve criticism ; it is no kindness to the dogs to keep them in such a place. The pit bull terrier is an absolute menace, and the same goes for the rottweiler. Many of us--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the timetable motion. What I have heard of his speech would be more appropriate to a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Malins : Many of us have had correspondence from constituents recounting problems faced as a result of vicious attacks and urging us in Parliament to act with proper haste, Mr. Speaker.

Only this week, the local paper in Croydon carried an article setting out details of an especially vicious attack, and said that the Government should act with speed. There is undoubtedly public concern, and that means that we should legislate quickly. Opposition Members ought to support the guillotine motion--[ Hon. Members :-- "We do."] If Opposition Members supported the guillotine motion, there would be no vote, and the matter would be dealt with quickly--[ Hon. Members :-- "Yes. So sit down."] I shall sit down in a moment.

Column 619

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said in 1976 how useful guillotine motions were. He felt that, on the whole, speeches in the House were far too long. He said that speeches that lasted 45 minutes should be limited, and could often be cut down to five, 10 or 15 minutes.

A guillotine motion is suitable for the Bill, because it is relatively simple and short. The time that has been made available to debate it is entirely adequate--we have the better part of 10 to 12 hours' debate on a Bill of only eight clauses, and that is enough. In my years in the House I have often listened to speeches of 20, 30, 40 or 50 minutes which could easily have been finished in three, four or five minutes. If one has something sensible to say, one can say it very quickly-- [Interruption.] I shall be doing that myself, although no doubt Opposition Members will think my speech neither simple nor good.

My father was a clergyman, and my mother used to say to him, "There has never been a bad short sermon." Until I started speaking today, one could have said that there had never been a bad short speech. The Bill is simple and fairly straightforward. A combination of the public demand for action and the ability of all Members to make their points briefly and succinctly should mean that there is ample time to finish dealing with the Bill today. That is why I support the guillotine motion.

Mr. Dickens : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I formally move, That the Question be now put?

Mr. Speaker : Not at this juncture. We have a timetable motion in front of us.

4.33 pm

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent) : Like the other Members who have spoken in the debate, I am strongly in favour of swift action to deal with dangerous dogs. As my hon. Friends have explained and will no doubt explain further during the general discussion, we have been in favour of such action a good deal longer than the Conservative party. If proper attention had been paid to some Opposition speeches on the subject, the matter might already have been dealt with.

No doubt some of those earlier discussions, too, took place on guillotine motions. Some people will have said, "We have got to get the business through," and did not care what the arguments were. That is why a better decision was not made earlier--because the House did not listen properly.

I am also in favour of a House of Commons which is careful about passing any guillotine motions.

Mr. Bill Walker : You should know.

Mr. Foot : I certainly know, and I have told hon. Members who want those simple history lessons explained to them the reasons why there have been differences of view about the nature of guillotine motions. However, I have always made it clear that it would be dangerous for the House if we agreed to them. Governments would like it and more and more of them would be introduced in the extremely improper way that this one is being introduced today.

Even those hon. Members who recall those earlier occasions when I introduced some guillotine motions, will be able to recall easily the difference between them and the motion that the Leader of the House moved today. The

Column 620

Leader of the House knows very well that this measure was not included in the Conservative party manifesto. He knows very well that there has been no lengthy discussion of the issue previously. Therefore, the motion is very different from many earlier guillotine motions. All the motions that I properly put to the House and that it voted involved measures that had been extensively debated in the House and in the country, and I was asking for a decision. Even in those circumstances, I tried to urge the House to be very careful about proceeding with guillotine motions in a flippant manner. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) seemed to talk as though it did not much matter.

The simple question is whether we will get a good Bill to deal with this matter. One reason why some of us urge caution about guillotine motions is that a very bad measure may result. The more that discussion is abbreviated between Second Reading and the other processes of the Bill, and the less time that is made available for considering amendments which may be tabled from different parts of the House, the less likely one is to get a decent Bill in the end. Those of us who want a decent Bill to deal with the issue have every right to put that case now, and I support it.

This Government, of all Governments in our history, should be the most eager to recognise that argument. They should recognise that they have put more measures through the House under guillotine motions than any previous Government. Indeed, I think that they have tabled more guillotine motions than have all the previous Governments this century.

Mr. Dickens : The right hon. Gentleman holds the record.

Mr. Foot : The hon. Gentleman is as wrong with his arithmetic as he was in giving dancing lessons. I do not hold the record ; it is held by the Government, who have introduced more guillotine motions than any Government in history. They should be a little careful, because some of the very Bills that were guillotined are the ones that are causing the greatest disturbance and trouble in the country today. The Government pushed through the poll tax under a guillotine motion, and that is one reason why it is such a shoddy measure and they have had to withdraw it. Another example is the measure for dealing with so-called football hooligans that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned--they have had to withdraw that. If they had listened a little more carefully, even though the Bill was being guillotined, they would have understood what was being said in the country and they would not have had to suffer that indignity. If only they had listened more carefully when the health service legislation was also forced through by guillotine.

The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors forced through one guillotine motion after another, and four or five years later they had to come here and say that they had to review the legislation in question and take more parliamentary time to see whether they could do it a bit better. Now the Government are attempting to do it again, by methods and means that will rebound on them. Nobody is assured that the Government have a proper way of dealing with the problem. I was not in the House when the Prime Minister made his announcement. I was at home because I was ill, but my

Column 621

dog--dogs have a stronger telepathic sense than others--protested most strongly. When I woke up and discovered what was happening. I realised that he was protesting about the measures that were being introduced.

The Prime Minister made such a fool of himself on the matter. He said that he would act the next morning because he had all the means of doing so, but a fortnight later we discover that he will not carry out the measure that he threatened because, rightly, it must be subject to proper examination and discussion in the House. The Leader of the House advanced a feeble case. He did not deal with the central question of how the Government will ensure that the Bill has a chance to be investigated and considered by people who know something about it. The Government, who have rejected proposals to deal with dogs more persistently than any other Government, say, "We shall abbreviate discussion ; there will be no chance for representations to be made between Second and Third Reading and the passage of the Bill." That is a disgraceful way to treat the House. The Bill will have serious defects and within a few months the Government will say to the House, "We have made a botch of this," just as they made a botch of the many measures that they pushed through under the guillotine.

I hope that the Leader of the House, even now, will listen to what hon. Members say. He was told that the House would accept a general measure because it is widely believed that there should be such a measure, and the more he understood that, the greater was the obligation on him to secure the general agreement of the House. If he tried to do that, he would get a better Bill than by rushing it through under the guillotine.

4.42 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, fairly, that there is a consensus in the House that action should be taken against dogs that risk lives or cause serious injury to human beings. We are united on that concept, but we must remember, too, the purposes of the House. As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)--the former Leader of the Opposition--and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the House wants good legislation. We want to be able to attest to our electorates, first, that we have considered legislation appropriately and, secondly, that we have heard the arguments taken around the track.

The guillotine is moved in the context of a previous guillotine, which was designed to limit discussion on the point at issue today--the licensing of dangerous dogs. In the past, we were assured by the Government that that was not possible because of the difficulty of distinguishing between a pure breed and a mongrel. I do not wish to pursue the Government's difficulties in drafting the legislation, but I appreciate the point that they made recently, which no doubt will be repeated today, that this is extremely difficult legislation to draft correctly.

Having said that, I am concerned that, in one sense, the arguments that were adduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were a bit of sophistry. He is saying

Column 622

that the imperative is such that, as dogs will be on heat in the summer months, the Bill must be passed before they have their day by the end of July.

Mr. Dickens : They are at it all year.

Mr. Shepherd : My understanding is that dogs are busy at it all the year round.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House believes that the Bill must be terminated by the end of July. Such arguments were adduced on the Football Spectators Bill. We were told that, unless it was enacted by a specific time, there would be mass murder on the terraces, and my party was drummed into supporting a guillotine motion to enact the Bill. Fortunately, the wisdom of Back Benchers, quietly spoken, was such that the Government acceded that the legislation may depend on the views of a judge. That is an outrageous way of approaching legislation. It does us great damage in the country and in the House and it does little credit to my party and to the Government, whom I support.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : Despite my hon. Friend's criticisms, does he feel sufficiently strongly to divide the House on the timetable motion?

Mr. Shepherd : I am a Member of Parliament. I was elected by my constituents to argue causes, to put reasoned arguments, if I could, to listen to them and to judge as best as I am able. The imposition of a guillotine is wholly unwarranted and it could lead to bad clauses that cause much difficulty to us and to the reputation of the House. I shall most certainly oppose the guillotine motion, if I can find hon. Members willing to be Tellers.

With the assistance of the Clerks Office, which is always available to hon. Members, I am able to correct some misleading information that I was given. It touches on a concern about the use of the guillotine and I shall refer to how it has been used.

Between 1945 and 1950, there were three guillotines. Between 1950 and 1960, there were six guillotines. Between 1960 and 1970, there were 13 guillotines. In that quarter of a century--when the greatest social revolution of this century, the inception of the welfare state, occurred-- we had a total of 22 guillotines.

Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), between 1970 and 1974, there were eight guillotines, and under Lords Wilson and Callaghan, between 1974 and 1979, there were 21 guillotines. [ Hon. Members :-- "Ah!"] My hon. Friends may say "Ah", but the horrors are yet to come.

In the 1970s, there were 29 guillotines. Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), we rose to a crescendo of respect for the House. Between 1979 and 1983, her first Government--in order to show that we were more productive that the Labour party--imposed 30 guillotines. Between 1983 and 1987, her second Government, which some would say was her most successful Administration, showed more caution and imposed only 10 guillotines. Her last Administration, between 1987 and November 1990, with the ill judgment of "guillotine-Jones" in the Whips Office, imposed 28 guillotines. Under the right hon. Lady's Government, we had a total of 66 guillotines.

There was a change of Government in 1990, and I wish the new Administration well. I had hoped that they would have learnt the lessons from the hubris that brought about

Column 623

the nemesis. I regret that they have introduced two guillotines, of which this is the second, and both seem to have a new tendency. They are now used when the House seems to be of the same opinion--a new, unhappy and unsatisfactory development.

The first guillotine was imposed on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. I did not know many hon. Members who wanted to deny their citizens a £140 reduction in poll tax, yet a guillotine was used on the measure because urgency was considered a critical factor. The House also seems united on the central issue of curtailing dangerous dogs, and a guillotine has been introduced supposedly to ensure the good will of the House.

Mr. Dickens : Does my hon. Friend agree that, when an Opposition are faced with a large majority, their only weapon and tool is time? That being so, they keep the show on the road in Committee so that later clauses and amendments are not properly discussed and the Government ultimately have to apply a guillotine to get the legislation through the House. That does not apply to the legislation under discussion, because the Opposition have made it crystal clear that, although they are reluctant to do so, they will support the guillotine to further the Bill's progress. Therefore, the fewer speeches that are made the better.

Mr. Shepherd : In the end, we may need a guillotine. Unfortunately, this Government's predecessor, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, used to introduce guillotines even before Second Reading. That leads me to a worrying point. Often, the processes of debate enable us to identify relevant issues. I gave the example of mongrels and I envisage that it will be difficult when I face a constituent with what looks like a brute, with the eyes and ears of an alsatian and a doberman pinscher, only to be told that it is a cross between a chihuahua and some other benign dog. No doubt my right hon. Friend--I was going to say Dr. Pangloss--the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to steer us cautiously through the difficult tests involved.

The 21st edition of "Erskine May"--in which standards have slipped--states that guillotine motions

"may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved"--

although the evidence of recent years is that the balance has not been carefully preserved--

"between the claims of business, and the rights of debate." We are citizens representing other citizens and all that we can do is attest that our fellow citizens bear what we are passing as legislation.

Burke's general injunction is a fair one, which we, as Conservatives, should remember. A majority does not simply mean the total number of Members divided by two plus one, but involves the processes by which we achieve that majority. It is terribly important that we enable everyone to make comments and observations on the details and difficulties of legislation. At best, we aim for consent and, at the very least, we aim for acquiescence. Too much of the legislation that has been drummed through the House has reflected to the disadvantage of the Conservative party, my hon. Friends and the Government whom I support.

Column 624

Let us consider the crescendo reached in 1988 when there were 13 guillotines in the course of a year, including those used on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the Water Act 1989 and the Official Secrets Act 1989, on which we had a three-hour guillotine motion to decide on a one-hour debate. Ministers were no longer able to explain the provisions of their own Acts. Let us consider the nadir, involving the Home Secretary's original proposition--the poll tax. If Ministers had allowed a debate, they might have realised where the sensitivities of the arguments lay and we might have obtained better legislation or even done away with the central principle. In that lamentable year, the Football Spectators Act 1989 required two guillotines and is now an ineffective piece of legislation. Did we serve our interests well? The arguments adduced by the Leader of the House did him no credit and showed that he knew none of the history and had no sympathy with what is happening. The House should pause to reflect that, from the three guillotines necessary between 1945 and 1951--when there was a huge social revolution and great changes--the number has risen to give an incredible assault of guillotines, rising to the crescendo of 13 in 1988. Can we honestly say that the quality of legislation and our arguments in the Chamber are better now?

Mr. Michael J. Martin : The hon. Gentleman must agree that the use of this guillotine is different : if we do not do something today, we shall have to do something tomorrow or the week after. Something must be done to protect the people in our communities.

Mr. Shepherd : It is fair for the hon. Gentleman to raise the fact that the issue under discussion is very much alive. Something must be done to stop these horrific incidents happening. I accept the general contention of his argument, but legislating in haste often means repenting at leisure, and the purpose of our parliamentary processes is to safeguard the quality of the rule of law. If it is discussed in a proper parliamentary fashion, legislation is more likely to have merit, stand the test of time and better meet the needs of the electorate. If that takes a day or two longer, it is the price that we must pay.

We were assured that the Football Spectators Act had to go through quickly because, if it were not dealt with swiftly under the injunction of a guillotine, hundreds if not thousands of people would be killed in football grounds. Fortunately, that dire prophecy did not come about. The Football Spectators Act is not functioning, because a judge decided that it should not do so, but it is on the statute book. Would it not have been better if we had paced our discussions on that legislation and taken note of the recommendations in the judge's report, which have now been implemented and which contained proposals that had the support of the entire House? I had not intended to speak for so long, but I feel fiercely about the abuse of parliamentary procedure. A guillotine motion involves the denial of free speech--that is the bottom line. We have enough difficulties in the House because, with 650 Members, it is difficult to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on matters of great import to the country. Perhaps there are too many of us. Today, we are imposing a guillotine motion on legislation on which the House has the ability to reflect.

Column 625

4.57 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : What a good speech. The House will have listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and recognised in the hon. Gentleman someone who is prepared to defend the liberties of the House and of our people, not only by words but by actions. He is right to be prepared to vote against the motion tonight, and he will certainly have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby if he chooses to exercise that right.

It is not good enough simply to say, as did the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that the matter has been handled badly and incompetently. He was right--it has been handled with the incompetence which is becoming a characteristic of the declining years of the Conservative Administration. But if the Government are so incompetent, cannot we as a House do something to restore order into the consideration of our legislation? Cannot we exercise the power of discussion with Ministers about how Bills should be timetabled to enable them to pass through the House in accordance not only with Ministers' perception of what is needed but in accordance with our perception of what is necessary to hold a proper debate?

At issue is not only our amour propre as Members of Parliament, but the ability of the people we represent to make their views known. We are not discussing merely the broad principle of acting speedily to determine how to deal with attacks by so-called dangerous breeds, but how the language of the law will improve the situation.

The difficulty with the Minister's approach is that he takes his gesturing at the Dispatch Box for sufficiency of argument. The reality is that the courts will have to consider the language of the eight clauses. Some 21 amendments or new clauses are to be considered tonight, and some are of great importance. Some of them may make or mar the effectiveness of the Bill.

Next Section

Home Page