| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Bowden : My hon. Friend has a reputation for defending what she regards as her constituency interests--on occasion, without looking beyond them. That can be a somewhat narrow view. Sometimes, we have to consider the national interest rather than just a constituency interest.
What about exercising dogs? Far too many dogs in Britain are imprisoned in small quarters for much of the day. People who own dogs and leave them tied up in the yard or confined to a small room for 10 or 12 hours or more a day are in the process of creating dangerous dogs. Dogs can become frustrated and angry if they are not getting enough exercise or enjoying proper freedom. Similarly, too many people make no effort whatever to train their dogs. All those elements combined lead to the existence of far too many potentially dangerous dogs.
Column 665
That is one side of the picture. We must remember the other side. Many people in this country regard their dogs as full and complete members of their family and treat them accordingly. They feed them properly and make sacrifices to bring them up and to ensure that they enjoy a full life. How different those people are from those who use the dog as a macho symbol or refuse to give it the care and attention that it should have--not just at Christmas or for a few months, but throughout its life.The breeds that the House is discussing and which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has mentioned--the dogs referred to as "dangerous"--are those most likely to be used for dog fighting. Many of those dogs are taken away from their mothers when they are young puppies--in some cases only a few weeks old. They are then trained for fighting by a method which can only be described as torture to create viciousness. They are fed various products. Often they are given drugs, to which they become addicted. When the drugs are removed or the dose is significantly reduced, the dogs become extremely fierce and dangerous. In some cases, it is not in the nature of the creature to be like that at all.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Is my hon. Friend going to tackle the problem of dogs which are deliberately cross-bred to enhance the negative qualities that he is talking about?
Mr. Bowden : The two things are linked. Clearly, people who cross- breed dogs because they think that it will make them easier to train for fighting and will make them more vicious or nasty are another example of the despicable business that sadly goes on in our own country and in many other parts of the world.
However, what concerns me about those dogs as a group is that I suspect that every hon. Members knows of a case in his constituency--I certainly know of a number in mine--of pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers which are totally safe and happy family pets. Some have been described to me as being among the soppiest dogs. The way that such dogs have been brought up, trained and looked after means that they are as safe as any other breed, including my own, the West Highland terrier, which can show considerable signs of fierceness on occasion, especially if they believe that they are protecting their owners.
Mr. Cryer : Following the attack on Rucksana Khan, several observers said that the American pit bull terrier in question was apparently completely playful and had been in and out of nearby flats and played with children. All those witnesses were staggered that the dog had turned out to be so vicious. Therefore, one cannot with any certainty make assumptions about the behaviour of dogs.
Mr. Bowden : One cannot with certainty make assumptions about the behaviour of any animal on this planet--be it human or dog, or any other form of animal. There will be times when any animal, under certain circumstances or for no explicable reason, will behave terribly. The hon. Gentleman is making out a case for the extermination of dogs and that is what worries me about some hon. Members. That is the implication of what he said. Because there have been a tiny number of terrible cases--the number has increased alarmingly in recent
Column 666
years--the next step is to say that one cannot risk one single case, as there might be a terrible incident, and therefore we must go the whole hog and take the appropriate action.Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : I wonder whether my hon. Friend will support clause 1, which states that the Home Secretary can designate any breed of dog as dangerous, even if it is a chihuahua which happens to catch his ankle. On the following weekend, under clause 1(3), he can
"appoint for the purposes of this subsection"
that no one may own such a dog after that day.
Effectively, that is the elimination of dogs. Under this Bill, any dog can be destroyed on any date that the Home Secretary decides. Is that not too wide a power to take?
Mr. Bowden : That is a rather extreme interpretation of clause 1.
Mr. Devlin : It is in the Bill.
Mr. Bowden : It is still an extreme interpretation. I do not envisage my right hon. Friend, or any future Home Secretary, going down that path to that degree. I would prefer to rely upon the sensible application of clause 3, which is a crucial part of the Bill and which, if it is operated effectively and sensibly by the courts, will have a major part to play in helping to control the problem of dogs, which is without doubt a problem in certain areas.
I must not take up the time of the House, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and we are on a timetable. We must never forget that dogs provide friendship, companionship and protection to many people. I have some worries about protection. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up, she will be able to comment on that. It worries me, because many people feel that they need dogs in their homes and gardens to protect them. If the dogs are confined within that private area on private property, it would be quite wrong for such a dog to be liable to be destroyed if it were to bite or attack someone while protecting its owners and their property.
There is also the question of dogs in the street. I shall again quote a personal example. On one occasion, my wife was in the street with one of our west highland terriers when she was accosted by a somewhat aggressive person who placed his fist right under her nose. The west highland terrier at my wife's foot growled, made some fierce noises and showed its teeth. I have no doubt that, if that man had struck my wife, the dog would have had its teeth into his ankle immediately. Is anyone suggesting that under those circumstances, when a dog was protecting its owner, the dog should be liable to be killed? It would be terrible and disgraceful if that were the case.
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bowden : I prefer not to. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I have given way several times and I do not think that it is fair to the House, so I must continue.
I am committed to dogs, as indeed is the Pro-Dog organisation of which I am a member, and we do not believe that dog registration will work. We know that nearly 70 per cent. of owners have not registered in Northern Ireland. Responsible owners would register, but irresponsible owners would not. What would happen
Column 667
when it came to deciding about exemptions? If we had a dog registration scheme for all 7 million dogs, there would have to be some exemptions--for example, people on income support and many on pensions. There would be whole groups of exemptions ; one would need a "Swansea for dogs", which would cost millions of pounds a year to operate.Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) rose --
Mr. Bowden : I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not give way to his hon. Friend, and I must continue as quickly as possible.
I was disappointed in the answer of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when I asked him about a free vote on dog registration. Whatever the Government's reason for their decision, surely the Opposition should have allowed their members a free vote. I know that there are a considerable number of Opposition Members who do not support dog registration--I can see one on the Benches now and he is a man of great integrity. It is wrong that a three-line Whip should have been imposed by anyone, most of all by the Opposition, on an issue of this sort.
I would like firmer control of breeders to result from this Bill. They are the root of many of the problems. I would also like it to result in the elimination of puppy farms, the closing and elimination of pet shops and the selling of pets in supermarkets, and higher fines for irresponsible owners. Collars and discs are now required by law and I want significant fines for those who have failed to obey that law and for people who let their dogs run loose or foul the pavements--significant fines of not £5 or £10 but £50 or £100. If we were to follow those lines, we would go some way to deal with the dog problem that exists.
Society needs dogs. No law should be passed that will allow dogs to be penalised by dog haters and those blinded by prejudice. 7.38 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : My mind goes back to the early days of my political career, when I was a junior urban district councillor. After about five days in office, I attended a public meeting of irate pensioners who were complaining about dog dirt on their open-plan gardens. One of the spokespeople said, "We want signs on the grass saying that dogs cannot defecate here." Being a clever and bright young thing, I said, "That is all very well, but dogs cannot read." I was immediately set upon by 35 pensioners and given the going over of my life. I have not had such a comprehensive going over since. Going through the door, a wise old councillor tapped me on the shoulder and said, "You might remember now, Terry boy, that dog dirt is a potent political issue."
I am reminded of that by the activities of the Lord President and the Home Secretary on this issue, which I accept are far more serious. Their minds are conditioned by the political consequences of not doing something. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who rightly drew attention to the political gymnastics of the Home Secretary over that terrible weekend when Rucksana Khan was savaged by a pit bull terrier. Only a few days before that young child was savaged, I tabled an early-day motion outrageously suggesting that
Column 668
10,000 pit bull terriers should be culled. I intended to raise the temperature of the debate in order to get something going. I was the most surprised person in the world when I heard the Home Secretary on the programme to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred saying, "We cannot do anything," yet on Monday agreeing with my outrageous idea of putting down 10,000 dogs.The Lord President made the position worse, because he spoke of speedy solutions. I do not mind speedy solutions, and I shall support the Bill tonight, but it does not go far enough, and I hope to contribute in more detail in Committee. Speed is relevant to the issue. The House should not forget that, more than two years ago, a young girl in Scotland, Kelly Lynch, died. No hon. Member has mentioned that that 11 or 12-year-old girl was savaged to death by two dogs. They were not pit bull terriers but rottweilers. If that did not concentrate the minds of the Home Secretary's predecessor, certainly of the Cabinet and of other hon. Members, something should have. I regret that the Rucksana Khan case led to the introduction of the Bill, but why the blazes were we not in this position two years ago, when a young child lost her life?
That sets the scene for the debate, which is being held because of the impending general election and not because of the major issue of dog control. If the Government wanted seriously to tackle the dog problem, they would start with a dog registration scheme and all that goes with it. It is not just registering dogs and spending £20 million setting up the scheme. However, it must be remembered that the Cabinet have thrown £15 billion at registering people. They have not solved that problem, and, for political reasons, many billions more will be thrown at it. We cannot accept that as a political excuse.
I am sympathetic to some of the issues that have been mentioned, such as muzzling, keeping dogs on leads and exclusion zones, but each has its own problems. Has any hon. Member tried to muzzle an adult dog that has been brought up not to be muzzled? There will be a few neurotic adult dogs going round with muzzles on for the first time in their lives.
Mr. Morley : There will be a few fingers missing, too.
Mr. Lewis : I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not muzzle any pit bull terriers.
I accept that dogs should be on leads in public places, but in the area that I represent, there are limited areas where dogs can be exercised securely. Pit bull terriers, rottweilers and alsatians must be exercised : the bigger the dog, the more exercise it needs. It is all very well if someone has a huge garden, a paddock or a private place to exercise such dogs, but someone who must exercise his dog in public places can experience severe difficulty. Keeping such a dog on a lead can be crueller than putting it down.
Other problems must be debated and resolved. We cannot throw a Bill on the Floor of the House, guillotine it and say, "That will solve the problem", because it will not.
I regret that the provisions of clause 3 do not extend directly to private property. The courts are not the answer, because they are clogged up with poll tax defaulters and associated problems. A postman or woman has a one in four chance of being mauled by anything from a chihuahua to a pit bull terrier.
Column 669
Mr. Lewis : The same applies to a canvasser, indeed. Last year, 7,000 postmen and women were bit by dogs.I support the Bill, I hope to be able to make a constructive speech in the Committee stage and I regret that there is no dog registration scheme, but I believe that a dog's breakfast will be created if we do not address the other issues that I have mentioned.
I should rather call the dog registration scheme a comprehensive dogs Act. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the problem of puppy farming. In pub car parks in north Wales on a Sunday morning, one can see dealers from Manchester picking up five-week-old puppies that should not be taken from bitches at that age and taking them back to Manchester to be sold for £150 or £200.
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : Does my hon. Friend recall that some of those puppy farmers set themselves up in business in response to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seeking to divert farmers from agriculture production ? The same policy is pursued in the EC, which is seeking to subsidise greyhound breeding in member states.
Mr. Lewis : My hon. Friend makes the point well. I believe that he has raised the matter in the House at least once.
We can no longer tolerate almost neurotic dogs being sold in pet shops and so-called pet supermarkets like those in the Manchester area. Control of that must be part of a comprehensive dogs Act. We all know what is going on and we know who the perpetrators are, but RSPCA inspectors have no jurisdiction in puppy farms. Those farms might have two or three brood bitches--birth machines that are used time and again to produce pups.
The Kennel blub has been prayed in aid several times in the debate, but it is as culpable as anybody for that puppy farming. One can go to those disreputable dealers--most of them are disreputable--and be given a piece of paper guaranteeing that a dog is of a certain pedigree.
Mr. Hardy : I am not a member of the Kennel Club, and have not been for quite some time, but the club has been seeking ways of discouraging that practice without being in breach of its own regulations, which it must observe. The Home Secretary will be aware that the responsibility lies with the Home Office. One of my hon. Friends is eager to bring in a Bill on the subject. It could have been presented to the House a long time ago, and I am sure that it would have met with widespread approval. It is time that the Home Office facilitated the passage of such a measure.
Mr. Lewis : My hon. Friend would have more chance of convincing me if the Kennel Club took a more robust approach and a less defensive stance on most dog issues.
I shall reiterate the point that has recurred throughout my speech : responsible dog ownership. The registration scheme would promote responsible dog ownership. I should declare my own interest : I have always had fox terriers. Why fox terriers? My ancient old dog died a year ago, but I am still a responsible dog owner. That seems contradictory, but I am responsible because I know that, with my life style--five days in London and two days back home in my constituency--I cannot find or afford the time to deal responsibly with a new puppy. One needs three or
Column 670
four hours a day to train a puppy to be a responsible adult dog, and because I cannot do that, I shall wait until I retire from this place before I own another dog.7.51 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who drew on his experience as a dog owner and in local government to give some interesting highlights of dog ownership and dog control.
As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I declare that interest. Although, like many hon. Members, I regret the need for its introduction, I support the Bill because I believe that the time has come to take action to prevent the continuation of attacks on the public, families and police by ferocious and dangerous dogs, particularly pit bull terriers and other breeds of fighting dogs, including new breeds. I assure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Police Federation wholeheartedly supports his prompt action in introducing the Bill today.
Owners of pit bull terriers in my constituency who have made representations to me understand the need for the Bill, particularly as it does not single out pit bull terriers, but applies to other types of fighting dogs such as the Japanese tosa.
Mr. Maclennan : Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said about the attitude of the Police Federation because I have seen a press release in the name of Mr. Barrie Clarke, the federation's press and public relations officer, which gives a different impression? It says :
"I think the Home Secretary has been badly advised by officials of the home office"
on his proposals to deal with dangerous dogs. The press release complains of a lack of consultation.
Mr. Shersby : There is no conflict between what I am saying and the press release to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Last week the federation was critical of proposals which, it believed, would involve the police in administering the scheme. That was because they already have a great deal to do in preventing crime and did not wish to shoulder the responsibility for the scheme's management. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear today that it is not to be the responsibility of the police, whose sole responsibility will be to issue the forms and register the names of people who apply for them, so that problem has been overcome. There is no doubt that the Bill has the wholehearted support of the Police Federation.
There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about attacks on individuals, in addition to information supplied by hon. Members about serious attacks that have resulted in injury or death. Those incidents have been in our minds in recent weeks, but there have been many other attacks in recent months which have gone unreported, but which emphasise the urgent need for action.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I sound like a policeman on duty for a minute or so, but I should like to put a few facts to illustrate my argument. Between November 1989 and May 1990 the Metropolitan police carried out a survey of dangerous dog incidents. I think that that survey is probably the only one available that gives an accurate picture. It showed that there were 237 incidents involving ferocious dogs in the Metropolitan police district during that time, of which no fewer than 95
Column 671
were carried out by pit bull terriers. Some 50 of them were carried out by German shepherd dogs, 14 by dobermans and the rest by a variety of other breeds. Those are interesting figures because they give the House a clear idea of the proportion of attacks carried out by pit bulls and German shepherd dogs--other breeds came pretty far down the list.Many of those attacks--but by no means all--were carried out by abandoned dogs, which form a large part of the problem. On 17 January 1990 at Croydon lane, Banstead, an abandoned American pit bull terrier attacked passers-by, probably after it had had a fight. In Lordship lane SE22, an American pit bull terrier was tied and abandoned in an alley way. On 7 May in Old road, Crayford, a pit bull was thrown from a passing car. It was scarred, the police assumed that it had been fighting and it was put down. In November 1989, at Gresley close N15, a Staffordshire bull terrier made an unprovoked attack on two children in its owner's family. A number of attacks have taken place on children in the family of the owner of the animal involved.
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : It has been said that some dogs are good family pets. Having spoken to the police, does the hon. Member agree that there is evidence of people breeding aggressive dogs with aggressive bitches to produce even more aggressive offspring?
Mr. Shersby : There is evidence of that, and it is reflected in the number of attacks on the family or close relatives of the owner of the animal involved.
In November, there was an attack at Walton Green, New Addington, when an American pit bull terrier attacked children aged seven and 11 in the street causing puncture wounds to their elbows, chin and cheeks. In another attack at Walsham road SE14, an American pit bull entered a school and attacked a child. It was a completely unprovoked attack and the child and school staff had no way of knowing that the animal would enter the school.
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : Should we not put the subject in perspective? Although I do not wish to support pit bull terriers --the numbers of attacks frightening--there are an estimated 7.5 million dogs in this country. In comparison to the total number of dogs, the number of attacks seems small.
Mr. Shersby : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but I must remind him that it is clear from the Metropolitan police survey, which looked at 237 incidents during six months in London, that 95 incidents concerned pit bull terriers. That is a substantial proportion. I will give my hon. Friend another example. In Kennington park, a large group of youths with 10 American pit bull terriers threatened the police. It was thought that the youths may have been preparing the animals for a dog fight. At Horton road, Yiewsley, in my constituency, in April last year, an unsupervised pit bull terrier attacked two goats in a compound, resulting in the death of both goats. That is the nature of the problem with which the Bill is intended to deal.
There is no doubt that the pit bull terrier is one of the most prominent animals in causing death and destruction to human beings and to other animals.
Column 672
Mr. Devlin : The Metropolitan police figures for 1990 show that of the 468 incidents of attacks on humans, 111 were carried out, as my hon. Friend said, by pit bull terriers. However, 86 were carried out by alsatians. According to the definition in clause 1, it is unlikely to be argued that alsatians are fighting dogs or dogs bred for the purpose of fighting. Unless my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes a wide interpretation of clause 1, such attacks will continue unabated by the Bill.
Mr. Shersby : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is listening carefully.
I made the point that 50 attacks during the six months concerned were carried out by German shepherd dogs, which are regarded as being the same as the alsatian breed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he would have powers under the Bill to extend the provision. If, on the basis of evidence available to him and to his colleagues in the Home Office, he comes to the conclusion that the German shepherd breed constitutes a danger as it does in certain circumstances, he will no doubt use the powers conferred on him by the Bill to deal with that problem.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : During my lifetime, I have been bitten eight times by dogs. [Hon. Members :-- "Where?"] I will tell the House exactly where I was bitten. I was bitten on the wrist by a cairn terrier when I offered a sandwich to its mate. That happened at Mackie's Hole in Angus. I was next bitten in Gifford by a collie. I was next bitten by an alsatian when canvassing in Liberton. I was next bitten by an alsatian when canvassing in central Edinburgh. I was next bitten by an alsatian when canvassing in Perthshire. I was next bitten by a scottie when canvassing in Perthshire. I do not think that dogs are all that good about not biting--certainly not biting me.
Mr. Shersby : I am tempted to say that my hon. and learned Friend has made a biting contribution to the debate, but perhaps that is unwise.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made what I and the police thought was a good speech to the police conference in Bournemouth. I and the police officers there listened to that speech with care and attention. I can tell my right hon. Friend that there was a great sense of relief that he was prepared to tackle the problem and that his action has the support of the Opposition. My role in advising the police is a cross-party one and I am delighted that the Opposition have taken a helpful attitude in supporting the Bill tonight. I was told by a number of officers from various parts of the country at the police conference about the increasing use of pit bull terriers by drug dealers. They use them literally as an offensive weapon to prevent the police from entering premises in which it is believed that drugs are being kept. I was also told that in the United States, that aspect of the problem has become so serious that the police break down the door with a sledgehammer and then shoot the animal concerned without question before searching the premises of the suspected drug dealer.
I am not sure that I command the agreement of the House in saying that we do not wish such a situation to develop here. The police oppose the carrying of firearms and they do not wish to use them in such a situation. However, we must support the police by dealing with the problem and ensuring that drug dealers and others who
Column 673
use ferocious dogs as an offensive weapon can no longer do so. I welcome, therefore, the compulsory muzzling or leashing of pit bull terriers as soon as the Bill becomes law.I also strongly support the prohibition on possession of a pit bull terrier unless it has satisfied the tough requirements proposed in my right hon. Friend's exemption scheme, which requires certification, confirming neutering and physical marking. The police are glad to know that responsibility for certification will not impose further burdens on their time, which is already under considerable strain. I am glad to know that the tasks will be put out to tender. I regard that as typical of my right hon. Friend's willingness to listen. He has been criticised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for making changes since the scheme was announced only a couple of weeks or so ago, but he has listened not only to hon. Members, but to the police, and he deserves all credit for so doing.
The Bill provides for the control of dogs on a public place. Although the police strongly support the Bill, they are still concerned that clause 3 refers only to a dog being dangerously out of control in a public place, which is defined as being
"any street, road or place (whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access whether for payment or otherwise."
In the Home Office consultation paper to which the Police Federation responded, it was envisaged that powers might be available to the police in any place other than a public place to enable them to control or destroy dogs that were dangerously out of control. Such a provision would have enabled a police officer to enter premises, as the police often do, with or without a warrant, to deal with domestic disputes and to be able to deal with a dangerous dog. I want my right hon. Friend to consider the following scenario. A police officer is called to go to a home to deal with a domestic dispute. That happens every day. That constable may face a ferocious dog. How is he to deal with a ferocious animal being set on him? Under the Bill, it will not be possible for the provision to apply because the police officer is in a private, not a public place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for State, when he replies to the debate, will tell the House about the Home Office's thinking on that point.
If such a scenario occurs, the police can, if support is available, try with the assistance of a dog handler or a veterinarian to tranquilise the dog. The destruction of the dog on private premises would always be a last resort. However, why is there no provision in the Bill to deal with the problem that a constable may face? Let us consider a constable who could be of any age from 18 to retirement age, and who faces a ferocious animal. That is a difficult task. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider that problem further, because the police are concerned about it and the problem has clearly not yet been resolved. I assume that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided as a matter of policy that an offence should occur only in a public place. However, I have been told that it could be argued that an owner or a person in charge of a dog may not allow a dog to leave the home and therefore enter a public place. That person may then be able to plead a defence if the dog escapes without the owner's intervention.
Column 674
The same question could arise in relation to clause 1(2)(e), where there is no definition of "stray". When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate, perhaps he can tell me whether "stray" is defined in some ancient statute about dogs. I should be interested in such a definition.Clause 1(3) relates to the destruction scheme. Who will administer that scheme? Why does there appear to be an apparent contradiction in clause 4(4)(b), which states that the offender may be ordered by the court
"to pay such sum as the court may determine to be the reasonable expenses of destroying the dog and of keeping it pending its destruction",
and clause 4(5), which states :
"Any sum shall be recoverable as a civil debt"
a point that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier? The Metropolitan police spent £56 per dog in kennelling fees between 1 January and 31 December 1990 because of the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation for pit bulls. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the police authority for the metropolis, I hope that he will be kind enough to consider those figures.
The Metropolitan police has had to use expensive private kennels while the fate of dogs was determined. Would it not be better to include in any fine imposed by the court the cost of kennelling the dog pending determination of its fate?
According to clause 3(1), if a dog is out of control in a public place, the owner
"is guilty of an offence"
and is liable, according to clause 3(3)(b),
"on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both."
How would the Crown prosecution service deal with such offences given the present contraints on its financial resources? The service's policy of reducing aggravated to non-aggravated offences causes me to speculate that there might be a problem. In invite my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to compare with the offences provided for in the Bill the issue that has arisen over the reduction of aggravated bodily harm to common assault in many cases where a person has been charged with assaulting a police officer. If the CPS is obliged, for financial reasons, to mitigate a charge under clause 3(3)(b), the clause may transpire to be relatively toothless.
Mr. Devlin : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Shersby : I have nearly finished, and no doubt my hon. Friend will make his contribution if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the fact that by 30 November the Bill will be full in force and that the exemption scheme will be introduced in the meantime. I am sure that the result will be greater protection for the public and for the police from savage attacks by these ferocious dogs. I am grateful for the prompt action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. Clearly many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. Brief speeches would be very much appreciated.
| Next Section
| Home Page |