House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jun 1991

Mr. Budgen : The hon. Gentleman referred to the courts. Does he agree that, in recent years, the doctrine of judicial review has been extended, and that, to a large extent, that is because the courts recognise that Parliament does not carry out sufficiently its duty of properly considering the detail of legislation? As a result of procedures such as the motion today, the courts are taking from Parliament some of the powers that are really parliamentary.

Mr. Maclennan : Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the extension of judicial review, because I recognise the defects of the legislative process. Constitutional arrangements for the scrutiny of Bills, even when there is broad bipartisan support for the measure, as there is in this case, are wholly inadequate and produce a statute book that is a disgrace. That statute book leads to uncertainty in the law and frequently has to be amended by further legislation in areas that have been precisely, although not adequately, considered by Parliament a short time before, as is the case with the Bill. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill and in 1988, there were opportunities to put right the matters that we seek to put right today. The Home Secretary and the Leader of the House sloughed off such considerations. The urgency arises from an earlier dereliction of Government duty and from inadequate

Column 626

attention to the detail of what was proposed by sensible people outside the House who have direct experience of dealing with the problems of dangerous dogs and other dogs. If the voices of, for example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had been listened to--never mind the voices of the political parties, or the many dissenting voices in the Conservative party--we should have had substantially better legislation.

The Government have been in office for too long. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, said that she thought that it was appropriate to dispense with argument within Cabinet. Her view was, "Why waste time listening to different points of view?" She told her colleagues that she wanted action. She said that she wanted only one or two like-minded people around her with whom to decide what would happen. She believed that matters would sometimes be decided in Cabinet Committee and sometimes in corners. That view has now been translated from No. 10 Downing street to the House of Commons. We are being asked to behave like a rubber stamp. The motion has not been tabled in the interests of speed. We should have accommodated the necessary speed if we had been asked and if there had been any discussion. That was not the approach. There were no questions about how to accommodate the necessity for speed. The precise amount of time through the middle of the night which will be devoted to the whole of the Bill has been slapped down on the Order Paper.

The simplicity of the subject may be deceptive. I do not believe that, because the Bill has only eight clauses, it is an easy Bill. It contains matters of considerable contention. What is the real reason for having the central debate about the effectiveness of dog control, which will turn on the question of registration, in the middle of the night? I venture to predict that the Press Gallery will be almost empty when that debate takes place. Registration will not be reported in the first or even the later editions of the press tomorrow. If some Conservative Members decide to speak out against some of the provisions, the Government's discomfort will be covered up to an extent. That is not what Parliament is about. Dissenting voices should be free not only to speak but to be heard. They should not be wrapped up in a debate in the middle of the night when most sensible people are in their beds.

If the public have a view about the way in which we handle matters, they think nothing of debates in the middle of the night. They think that we are pretty close to insane to discuss serious matters in the middle of the night when there are two weeks of time ahead of us. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) was right. She has her ear to the ground. I have never met a constituent who was prepared to defend the idiocy of late-night debates. The fact that the Government force through guillotine motions is not a sign of strength ; it is a sign of weakness. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends object to Parliament being treated in that way. Although we agree with the substance of the Bill, we wholly disagree with the Government's handling of it, and we will vote accordingly.

5.5 pm

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks) : The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) both spoke against the timetable motion.

Column 627

I take the opportunity to express my support for it. I shall do so briefly in view of the obvious cross-party support on the matter. I welcome the Bill and I believe that it was right to introduce a guillotine motion to ensure that it becomes law as quickly as possible. Most of my constituents want the Bill to become law as quickly as possible. In the past two years, the House has discussed the regulation of dog ownership on many occasions. The fear caused by dangerous dogs has been an issue on which many of our constituents have expressed great anxiety. In my experience, it has caused more letters to flow into our postbags than any other matter, with the possible exception of what should be done about the welfare of pigs.

The public anxieties have become acute following recent attacks, with which we are all familiar and which have been highly publicised by the press. News of the planned importation of huge fighting dogs from Japan has also worried the public, and not surprisingly. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said earlier, we should not underestimate how frightened some people are by the dogs living in their street. The Government are right to do something about that, and it is right that it should be done before the House rises for the summer recess.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time on 21 May :

"it is clear that such dogs have no place in our homes." The Leader of the Opposition replied :

"I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about fighting dogs." --[ Official Report, 21 May 1991 ; Vol. 191, c. 776.] With that unusual degree of political consensus, it should be possible to pass a relatively simple and well-balanced measure with the considerable speed that the public have every right to expect. For a number of reasons, I believe that it is entirely appropriate to introduce a timetable motion. The first and most important reason is that the provisions governing the ownership of fighting dogs need to be introduced as soon as possible so that further attacks, such as the attack on Rucksana Khan in Bradford, are avoided. The sooner the Bill is passed, the sooner the 30 November deadline is clear and the sooner the offence of dogs being dangerously out of control applies, the sooner it will be necessary under the law to muzzle and leash dangerous fighting dogs. What would our constituents think if we were to dilly-dally and shilly-shally, taking days or weeks to debate a short Bill and spending much of our time debating matters such as the registration of all dogs, which is peripheral to the problem in any case? What would they think if, during that time, there were further attacks which might have been prevented? We have a duty to put the measure on the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Budgen : Surely our constituents would understand that, if the Bill does not come into effect until 30November, there is plenty of time to have a decent interval between Second Reading and Committee stage? That would allow those who feel that they may be treated unjustly to make representations about Second Reading. It is all very well to say that our constituents want this legislation to be bashed through, but they understand that passing legislation is not a matter of knocking things

Column 628

through a sausage machine. Rather, it involves trying to evoke some consent among those who may be affected by legislation.

Mr. Hague : My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) had better have another look at the Bill. He will then discover that some clauses will come into effect immediately the Bill is enacted. My colleagues on the Front Bench will correct me if I am wrong about that. The provisions relating to muzzling and leashing will come into force on enactment. Throughout the summer it is important that the public are reassured that such a provision exists and that dangerous dogs on our streets are muzzled and leashed. Such provisions should be introduced straight away.

Another reason why we should approve the timetable motion is that there are only six or seven weeks left before the summer recess. We should not let the Bill rest in limbo over the summer recess and enact it in October or November. There is sufficient cross-party agreement that urgent action should be taken to justify a timetable that will lead to Royal Assent before the summer.

Finally, we should approve the timetable motion because the Bill is relatively straightforward. The more complex far-reaching matters that some of my hon. Friends and others would like to add to the Bill have already been debated exhaustively during this Parliament. The Bill will, in effect, eventually make pit bull terriers extinct in Britain, but it will do so in a relatively humane and considered way. There is overwhelming support in the House for that proposition. In the meantime, those dogs must be muzzled and leashed in public places. There is overwhelming support for that proposition, too. The Bill also creates a new offence of permitting a dog of any breed

"to be dangerously out of control in a public place".

There is overwhelming support for that proposal. The Bill also gives my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the power to extend the provisions of the legislation to other breeds of dog not specifically mentioned in it. There must be overwhelming support for that provision as well. Almost every feature of the Bill commands widespread support.

The difference between hon. Members rests on whether a registration scheme for all dogs should be added to the Bill. I an not in favour of an all- embracing registration scheme. We are considering the problem of dangerous dogs. I do not believe that it will help us deal with dangerous dogs to insist on the registration of every spaniel, Scottie or chihuahua in the land. Whatever we think about the merits of such an idea, the continuing debate about is should not be allowed to obstruct and delay the passage of this Bill. It is therefore right to allocate a fixed time for the debate about registration. No one can claim that the House is not fully familiar with every debating point, representation, argument and nuance for and against a registration scheme. To my recollection, we have voted on the idea three times in the past two years and this timetable motion will allow another vote. We do not need to spend many hours rehearsing arguments with which every hon. Member must be extremely familiar. Moreover, in all probability there will be a further vote on a registration scheme if the other place inserts a requirement for such a scheme, so no one

Column 629

can say that the proposed rapid passage of the Bill prevents the House from passing judgment on that related but different matter. The Bill provides for a range of measures which, I believe--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the allocation of time motion. I am afraid that he is making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Hague : I have advanced arguments in favour of the timetable motion, which makes it possible to place a highly desirable measure on the statute book before the summer recess. The issues that other people would like to debate more extensively have already been exhaustively debated both within and outside the House. We know that we need to act, and we should do so tonight.

5.13 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I was surprised that the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who clearly favours the Bill and the timetable motion, should tell us at great length why we should approve the motion. That might have happened more quickly had he not bothered to speak.

I am opposed to the timetable motion and the procedure by which the Bill will be passed in the short space of time that the Government are proposing. The Bill is knee-jerk legislation. If a pit bull terrier or a rottweiler was hanging on to one's ankle, that might be a very good reason to jerk one's knee.

I imagine that there is support inside the House and in the country at large for the central measure in the Bill. However, this is not a national emergency, nor is it an issue about which we need to take such a quick decision. We need decisive action, but the Opposition have been urging the Government to take action for well over 12 months. Only after the popular newspapers carried pictures of the Home Secretary on their front pages and demanded that he stop dithering, and only because the Prime Minister wants to act decisively after being accused of dithering all the time, do we see legislation rushed through the House.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a principled speech and that makes him one of the most endangered species on the Conservative Benches. As he said, as a result of this timetable motion we are likely to get bad legislation. There is agreement across the House about the need to deal with fighting dogs and there is no question of the Opposition trying to trip up the Government or to talk the measure out or delay it. That is all the more reason why we should approach the issue in a measured way. The best way to achieve that would have been to have a normal Second Reading today and then a Standing Committee stage and then to return to the House. There could have been an agreement between the two sides through the official channels about an unofficial timetable. That would have been all right because we are not trying to stop the legislation. However, the timetable motion is an insult to the House and we will end up with bad legislation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be able

Column 630

to consider all the nuances proposed in the Bill. No doubt, if more consideration was given to that, hon. Members would be more informed.

Mr. Budgen : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the really important gap of time is that between Second Reading and the Committee stage? It is not just hon. Members who want to consider the Bill's principle. The Government have changed their mind on several occasions and it is important that the various interested parties, some of which are in the minority, should be able to consider the Bill and make representations to their Members of Parliament. Hon. Members do not encompass the whole wisdom of the nation ; nor do the Government. If we are to be a proper representative body, we must hear the representations of the people and consider them between Second Reading and Committee. It is wholly unnecessary to introduce legislation in this way. It makes a mockery of the House and it gives the impression that the Government are acting in an ill-considered way.

Mr. Banks : On this occasion, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He repeated some of the points that I have made. I said that we should have a Second Reading debate today and then have a Committee stage which would not last very long, but which would at least enable hon. Members to consider the Bill in detail. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that the Government have already changed their position on several occasions. If I remember correctly, the first proposal to emerge from the Home Secretary was the destruction of all pit bull terriers. That was met by a great cry of outrage from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from responsible pit bull terrier owners. The owners wanted to know why their dogs should be destroyed. I believe that there is no such thing as an irresponsible dog, only an irresponsible owner. If we had rushed legislation through at that stage, who knows what would have been enshrined in it? I have received a great wodge of letters about this from my constituents and they are still pouring in. I should like to be able to consider those letters and raise issues in Committee--if I was lucky enough to be a member of a Committee. Most owners of those dogs would not consider the way in which we are approaching the matter as a responsible way for the House to conduct its business.

The timetable motion is inappropriate, unnecessary and undemocratic, as many such motions are. I am disappointed that the Opposition Front Bench will not force a vote on the timetable motion. However, as I understand from my very good friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), if there is to be a free vote, I shall be in the Division Lobby opposing the timetable motion.

5.19 pm

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : I support the timetable motion. I have some sympathy with the argument of my hon. Friend for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I too, agree that excessive use of the timetable procedure cannot ultimately be conducive to good parliamentary Government and can also be counterproductive. Equally, I understand the argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who spoke against excessive use of the guillotine procedure. His

Column 631

words would have had slightly more credibility had he not been such an enthusiastic user of the procedure when he was in Government. I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) that it is curious, to say the least, that we are to debate such matters at three or four o'clock in the morning. However, that comment relates less to the use of the timetable procedure and more to the need for reform of parliamentary procedures which seem to be mooted in theory but rarely proposed by the Leader of the House or his shadow counterpart.

We have an obligation to move forward quickly with the Bill. There is no doubt that we have bipartisan support for the principles in the Bill and support within the country not only for producing it but for getting on with it very quickly.

As the father of a son aged four and as the previous owner of bull mastiffs, mastiffs and Irish wolfhounds, I understand that there is a necessity for legislation that not only deals with fighting dogs but allows muzzling powers so that magistrates can deal with large or potentially threatening dogs that may cause problems for parents with young children. It is significant that the Metropolitan police say that, out of 468 dog attacks on human beings in 1990, no fewer than 111 were committed by American pit bull terriers. Any responsible Government would need to introduce such legislation.

Mr. Winnick : Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the issue is not that such dogs are dangerous and that measures must be taken to deal with them? That is not likely to divide the House of Commons. The issue is the manner in which we debate and decide on legislation. If, for example, the original proposals had been put before us in a Bill to slaughter dogs--that may be right or wrong ; we have our own views--no doubt the hon. Gentleman would make the same speech as he is making now. There has been time for some reflection. All that we are saying is that, between Second Reading and Committee, there should be some time for the House of Commons perhaps even to strengthen the measure along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentions. In some respects, the measure is not as strong as some of us would like. All that we are asking is that the House of Commons give due consideration to the measure.

Mr. Coombs : Given the consensus behind the legislation, any responsible Government should ensure not only that the measure proceeds as quickly as possible to protect innocent people but that it proceeds at all. The shadow Leader of the House said, "Yes, we will deliver on a guillotine motion." Several hon. Members than said that they would not support it. If we did not have a guillotine motion, there is a strong possibility that the measure would be filibustered out of existence, and therefore an important piece of legislation would not reach the statute book.

Mr. Budgen : Will my hon. Friend please answer one point? One of the most dangerous occasions is when the House of Commons and its Front Benches appear to agree. One of our duties as Members of Parliament from time to time is to put forward unpopular views and to ensure that the House considers them. It is very authoritarian and dangerously populist to say that, simply because the consensus in the House is in favour of something, the proper process of consideration and debate

Column 632

should be truncated. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have a very distinguished ministerial future. However, is there not still, however despicable, some role for Back-Bench Members of Parliament from time to time to put forward minority views?

Mr. Coombs : I would agree with my hon. Friend if the timetable motion did not genuinely give enough time for debating what is in the Bill. The trouble is that, without a timetable motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, we would spend most of our time debating what is not in the Bill, and that is a dog registration scheme. For that reason, there is adequate time for developing the arguments that we need to develop and to propose an important piece of legislation that will save lives and prevent children from being disfigured, because that is what it is all about.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : I hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments for the timetable motion. If he casts his mind back to the previous Session, he may remember the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its various stages. There were 165 clauses, I think, and heaven knows how many amendments. Although we fiercely opposed what the Government are doing, there was no guillotine.

Mr. Coombs : There was no guillotine because hon. Members on both sides were committed to acting in a way that addressed the issues in the Bill rather than issues that were not in it. As a result, there was a consensus that the Bill should be on the statute book within a certain time. In this case, if we did not have the guillotine, we would find that hon. Members in favour of dog registration--let us face it, they already have three out of five hours to consider that subject in Committee, at whatever hour of day or night it may be--would frustrate the consensus of Parliament and of the vast majority of people to introduce this legislation. We saw a hint of that this afternoon. In view of their avowed aim to frustrate the legislation, the guillotine motion is not only necessary but desirable, and I support it.

5.27 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I make it abundantly clear that those of us who are critical of the guillotine motion support the Bill. We want to extend it and make it more effective. We do not want to make it less effective ; we want to improve it. We are all subject to the pressures of our constituents, and quite rightly so. The accident involving Rucksana Khan occurred within a mile and a half of where I live in Bradford. It is not a question of wanting to oppose the Bill, talk it out or generally sabotage it. In any case, if the Government felt that there was the slightest hint of that, they have plenty of Members such as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) to come to the House for a closure motion, to maintain the required 100 hon. Members, and get the measure through. There is no question about that.

Reference has been made to 1976 and my saying that guillotines were desirable to cut out debate. We were in an entirely different situation. We had a minority Labour Government and we were being harried by an Opposition who had recovered from the shock of an election defeat and were proving to be extremely effective. If anybody asks me about the pattern of behaviour that I follow in this Parliament to try to stop Conservative Government legislation, I will tell them that I follow the pattern of

Column 633

behaviour of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he was in opposition and supported by the late Ian Gow. At that time, they were harrying us very successfully. However, I have changed my mind to a considerable degree about guillotines. Debate helps to improve legislation. As I have been in the House for 14 years, I do not believe that it is a criminal offence to say that that process can improve legislation.

Mr. Budgen : I support the hon. Gentleman's point. At least it can be said about those measures that were got through under the guillotine by the then Labour Government that, in broad outline, they had been considered by the electorate at the preceding general election. The great criticism of this measure is that it has been thought up quickly, that the central argument has been changed at least twice--some say, three times--and that there has been little public debate about the principle of the Bill on Second Reading. I am proud to have voted against the guillotines introduced by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), but this Bill is the weakest possible case for a guillotine.

Mr. Cryer : I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view, but I was clarifying my position. I am flattered that people look up the speeches that I made in 1976, so I want to make my position clear--that I do not apply double standards, something that I hope all hon. Members are concerned about. Moreover, this Government have an overall majority of 100 and a majority of 150 over the Labour party. The guillotine allows three hours for Second Reading. We might be able to add on a little bit, if the guillotine debate does not take up the full three hours. There is pressure on us to do that so that we can add on few extra minutes to the miserly three hours that have been allowed for Second Reading. The two new clauses that deal with a dog registration scheme will not be debated at any hour, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said. They will be debated between 10 pm and 1 am. Three hours, under the guillotine, have been allowed for a very important principle.

The Leader of the House says that there has been plenty of time for debating a dog registration scheme. Time was indeed devoted to debating the subject. The House decided that there should be a dog registration scheme. However, due to the Government's reservations in 1988, they inserted a clause in the Local Government Bill that provided that a dog registration scheme may--not shall--be introduced. That clause has not been implemented.

The new clause 1 and new clause 5 debates, between 10 pm and 1 am, will give me the opportunity to say that, if Ministers had implemented the decision of this House in 1988, in all probability Rucksana Khan would not have been attacked by an American pit bull terrier in that grossly savage and intensely disfiguring way. However, they did not do so. I do not intend to develop that theme, because we are debating whether there should be a guillotine. The argument has many ramifications, but we have been given insufficient time to follow them up. New clause 1 and new clause 5 are to be considered in Committee, when they ought to be dealt with in great detail.

Column 634

A crucial element is the classification of dogs. Between 1 am and 3 am--two hours--the House is to consider a total of nine groups of amendments, chosen by Mr. Speaker. That does not work out at very many minutes each. They include amendments to cover breeds such as rottweilers. The majority of serious dog attacks mean that people have to be taken to hospital with massive injuries. During the last three months, one person has lost his life as a result of such an attack. He was attacked, however, not by a pit bull terrier but by an alsatian. We ought to be given sufficient time in which to consider how the Secretary of State's powers can be extended to include all types of dogs that potentially can cause harm to human beings. The first group of amendments out of the nine that are to be debated during that period of two hours is devoted to that subject. We know how long that subject could take up.

Mr. Hind : I have been following the hon. Gentleman's point very carefully. In the light of what he has said, does he not think that it is time to end this debate now and deal with the substantive issues before the House?

Mr. Cryer : That is an example of the way in which the guillotine brings pressure to bear on the House of Commons. It is outrageous. I wish the hon. Gentleman had said that when we debated the measure that introduced the poll tax. Had he done so, the embarrassment in which his party is now shrouded would have been considerably reduced.

May I deal with a few of the other items in the nine groups of amendments that we are to consider in that two hours? I refer to the conditions in which potentially dangerous dogs are kept and also to the question of affirmative orders. I tabled that amendment because it would provide greater accountability to the House if more orders were subject to the affirmative rather than to the negative resolution procedure. I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is a minority occupation and the media do not give much publicity to the work of that Committee. However, it does important work, and I should like to explain why I believe that orders should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. However, due to the guillotine, the likelihood is that we shall not have time to discuss that amendment. The Home Secretary recognises that there will not be enough time under the guillotine, because he has not devoted time and attention in the House of Commons to discussing these orders. However, when he announced that he intended to introduce the Bill at a press conference, he devoted a considerable time to outlining the way in which the orders that the Bill gives him the power to make will operate. I regard it as a very great pity that he did not bother to consult the House when elaborating on what the orders should cover. That would have enlightened our discussions. Although the Bill is supported by the Opposition, the fact that the Government have decided to impose a guillotine, in conjunction with the Home Secretary's elaboration of these matters when speaking to the press but not to us, shows remarkable contempt for this House.

The last matter that is to be debated within those two hours is new clause 3, which deals with an application to the Criminal Inujuries Compensation Board when somebody is injured by a dog whose owner cannot be traced. That is not an unreasonable new clause. It is an

Column 635

important matter for that minority of people who may find themselves in that position. The House should show reasonable care for minorities, but almost certainly we shall not reach new clause 3, due to the guillotine.

The guillotine is misplaced. It has been criticised by both sides of the House. I hope that the House will vote against it and will register the fact that the House feels deeply unhappy about the way in which the Government have abused the Opposition, who time and again have said that they were willing to help and co-operate. There should be a demonstration about the Bill so that, when the Bill turns out to be a dog's dinner and the Government have to produce amending legislation, they cannot turn around and say, "You failed to vote against the guillotine."

Mr. Budgen : Would not any decent Opposition have opposed the guillotine?

Mr. Cryer : That is what we are doing.

Mr. Budgen : I accept that. If one takes Mr. Disraeli's dictum that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose

Mr. Skinner : We do not need Disraeli to tell us how to oppose. He was a Tory.

Mr. Budgen : I dare say the Opposition do not. It is a rotten day for the Opposition if they cannot muster a vote against a guillotine of this sort.

Mr. Cryer : I would not entirely share that view. Members of the Opposition have different views, but the Government will find that the Opposition are working well today.

5.40 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) clearly demonstrated my reason for saying that one should support the Government's guillotine motion. If Ministers had tried to reach an accommodation of views so that the Bill could be passed in time to meet the requirements, which were clearly spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, there is no doubt that the Labour Whips could not have delivered. That is the experience in this Parliament. That is why I believe that it is right to pass the guillotine motion. The Opposition say that they can agree something, but it rarely happens--one need only examine Scottish business to see that. 5.41 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I came into the Chamber feeling that, although the guillotine motion was not necessary--I intervened during the speech of the Leader of the House--I would probably go along with it. I have changed my mind. I shall vote against the motion as, I hope, will other hon. Members.

I have no doubt that action is necessary to deal with the dogs in question. On that issue, there is no dispute between the two sides of the House. Hon. Members rarely agree that legislation is necessary. Few, if any, Conservative Members would argue that legislation is not necessary to deal with these dogs--although I do not know the view of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). There is a consensus.

Perhaps I should not admit this in the House of Commons--one should never admit to any form of cowardice--but I suppose that I have spent most of my life

Column 636

in fear of some dogs. I imagine that I am not in a minority of one. I have the greatest sympathy with postmen who have to deliver letters regardless of ferocious dogs. I am a dog lover, and I should not like people in my constituency to think otherwise.

Is the guillotine motion necessary or desirable? Governments, whether they have a large majority or not, introduce guillotine motions because they fear filibustering and delay, and the actions of Members who oppose controversial legislation. That is part of the House of Commons, and there is no reason to apologise for it. It is the job of hon. Members--certainly of the Opposition--to oppose controversial legislation.

There is a consensus on this necessary Bill. It is unlikely that any hon. Member will filibuster to delay it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that no one who sees on television the injuries inflicted on a child by a dog could doubt that action is necessary. If there is any criticism of the Government, it is that action was not taken earlier.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : It took two years.

Mr. Winnick : Indeed. If action had been taken, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, a child might not have been injured. Bearing in mind what has happened to people, particularly children, the Bill is certainly necessary.

The Bill could be better if the House of Commons had sufficient time to debate matters, rather than rushing it through as the guillotine motion intends. Why could we not have had a two-day debate? Why have controversy over the guillotine motion when it could have been avoided if the Government had said, "Here is a two-day debate and the House has agreed that action is necessary"? Instead, once again, we have a typical Government guillotine motion. At the risk of repeating what others have said, I should have thought that, given other Bills which have been

guillotined--particularly the poll tax Bill--and which have been shown to be totally wrong, the Government would be reluctant, to say the least, to have a guillotine on this subject, especially when there is general agreement that action is necessary.

I am one of those Members who have changed their minds. One rarely admits that in the House. We listen to a debate and make up our minds accordingly, and I have done so. Several hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), have persuaded me that it would be wrong to go ahead with the motion. For that reason, a number of us will go into the Division Lobby to express our view in the usual way in which we oppose motions with which we disagree. 5.46 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : I shall speak briefly because, like other hon. Members, I wish to move on to the substantive motion. I wish to make one point to correct the central thesis of the speech by the Leader of the House which was echoed by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who is not now in his place--having read the speech put into his hand, the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber.

I wish to make it clear that the argument for the guillotine, which is based on the need to complete

Column 637

consideration of the Bill today and tomorrow morning, is wholly false. Had there not been a guillotine, I have no doubt that the Bill would have concluded all its stages today. There would have been a good chance that it would have concluded all its stages more quickly. The only difference is that we would have had sensible consideration of difficult points.

The arithmetic is obvious. Had we not spent three hours on the guillotine--

Mr. Budgen : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : Not for the moment.

Had we not spent three hours on the guillotine, as we shall, the Second Reading debate would have begun at 3.30 pm. I have no doubt that that debate could have been concluded, by arrangement, some time before 10 pm. We would then have gone on to registration. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is also not in his place, does not seem to understand that point, but it is relevent to the Bill. The prepared speech which was put in his hand persuaded him to suggest that the Bill was entirely about tosas and pit bull terriers--

Mr. Budgen rose --

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is characteristically over-enthusiatic. If he will contain himself and be patient, I promise that he will have a moment before I finish.

The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks talked as though the Bill was entirely concerned with pit bull terriers and tosas, but many of the clauses deal with dogs in general. I urge Government business managers who prepare speeches for Back Benchers to do the job more accurately.

Had we not spent three hours on the guillotine motion, we should have got on to registration well before 10 o'clock. Almost certainly, we would not have taken three hours to discuss that. We should then have gone on, in some of the small hours of the morning, to discuss amendments in Committee. The Bill would have been considered more quickly. The only difference would be that we would have come to a vote on registration not in the small hours of the morning but at a reasonable time of night when Conservative Members condescended to be here and when the newspapers reported our deliberations.

To maintain the equilibrium of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South- West, I now give way to him.

Mr. Budgen : On reflection, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel rather ashamed of the Opposition? Is it not the duty of the Opposition to oppose and, in opposing, to uphold the minority interest and give it an opportunity to be heard? In their anxiety to pander to what they believe to be the overwhelming public view, are not the Opposition denying the rights of the minority, which should be preserved by parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Hattersley : The slogan about it being the duty of the Opposition to oppose is the most trivial view of politics that it is possible to imagine. It is the duty of the Opposition to support those things in which they believe and to oppose those things with which they disagree. As I am basically in agreement with the contents of the Bill and

Column 638

I am anxious to get on to a proper discussion of it, I propose to sit down so that the Home Secretary can make an equally brief speech and we can begin to spend our time doing something worth while instead of making the House look ridiculous, as this guillotine motion has done.

5.49 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker) : I sense that the feeling of the House is to move to a decision on the motion-- [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have been snapping and snarling throughout the debate. Snapping and snarling is not unparliamentary, but such behaviour comes under the description in the Bill of being

"dangerously out of control in a public place".

Mr. Skinner rose--

Mr. Baker : The hon. Gentleman will be lucky not to fall within the provisions of clause 3.

Mr. Skinner rose--

Next Section

Home Page