House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Jul 1991

Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order for me. I have received no report on that matter.

Column 1261

DANGEROUS DOGS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,

That the Order of the House [10th June] be supplemented as follows : --

Lords Amendments 1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order. 2.--(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Quesiton which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended ;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall--

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended ;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment ;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments ; and (

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments ;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Column 1262

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion-- (

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair ; (

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall- -

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item :

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal ; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental 6.--(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reaons and the Report of such as Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.-- [Mrs. Rumbold.]

Column 1263

Orders of the Day

Dangerous Dogs Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 1

Dogs bred for fighting

Lords amendment : No. 3, in page 2, line 9, leave out ("destroy them, or").

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mrs. Rumbold.]

10.17 pm

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : I want to thank the other place and the Government for their role in accepting this amendment. I do not want to delay the House, but this is a serious point. The tragedy is that, because of the way in which earlier proceedings were guillotined, we were not able to discuss this. It would have been wrong for some people who have to have their dogs put down to be able to obtain compansation. There is no doubt that some of them would have been tempted to get hold of the nearest bit of scaffolding and bang the dog over the head. They would then be entitled to compensation. At least the amendment stops that happening and ensures that dogs have to be put down humanely by veterinary surgeons or others so qualified. We are glad to support the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made that point. This is a good idea and we are happy to accept it simply because we would not wish an owner to destroy a dog by inhumane means and then be able to claim compensation and the cost of the dog's destruction. It would not have been practical to determine in every case whether an owner had destroyed his dog humanely. It seems right that only owners who arrange for a veterinary surgeon or other responsible organisation to put an animal down should be able to claim compensation.

Question put and agreed to.--[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 8

Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent

Lords amendment : No. 24, in page 6, line 31, at end insert ("and includes the common parts of a building containing two or more separate dwellings.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mrs. Rumbold.]

Mr. Corbett : The Minister will remember that in our earlier debate on this part of the Bill some of us mentioned the problem that exists in tower blocks in big cities involving people who keep menacing dogs. Sometimes those dogs are used for menacing and threatening

Column 1264

purposes. I know of cases in my constituency where, regrettably, people with such dogs are thoroughly bad neighbours in that they might make a lot of late-night noise, not necessarily because of parties. It seems that they have different sleeping habits from the rest of the population. Whereas it is usually possible to knock on a neighbour's door to ask if he would mind turning down the noise because one has to get a bus to work at 7.30 am--or words to that effect, depending on one's temper and on the time of night--that approach becomes absolutely impossible. One knows that the door will be opened by a dreadful monster with an even worse monster on four feet with him, panting. That is wholly unfair.

There are two types of dog. The first lives in the flats and can be used in a menacing manner or is itself a menace on the immediate landings of the block of flats. The second type is the dog that is used to using the public places--public in the sense that they are used by the residents of the flats. That is the point, because those places are not public in the sense that all members of the public are entitled to have access to them. I am glad that the city of Birmingham--and, I believe, other cities--are getting support from tenants to introduce concierge schemes, which are very well thought out. They involve some extra rent but trained security people are on duty. An analysis has been carried out of the hours when vandals are most active and the level of staffing is geared to deal with that. The public cannot merely enter those blocks of flats. Great efforts are being made in more and more blocks to keep some people out. I should like the Minister to assure us that that issue is covered and that the instances where the dog either gets in or is perhaps brought in by a visitor, with the same results, will also be covered. I am sure that other hon. Members have had a similar experience. It is a real problem for many people living on top of one another in such conditions.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : I have no wish to detain the House, but there must be more multi-storey flats in my constituency than in any other constituency in the United Kingdom. I have seen some beautiful multi-storey flats destroyed because thoughtless neighbours let dogs foul the lifts, and people are frightened to use them. I described in our earlier debates how some stupid neighbours call the lift, put the dog in and hope that someone takes the dog out on the ground floor. That makes me think that some dogs must be cleverer than their owners. I have seen the environment of a lot of multi-storey flats destroyed because people keep large dogs there. So I hope that the Minister can assure me that the provision will cover Scotland, too.

Mrs. Rumbold : The legislation was sparked off partly by the debate in the House in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) took part. Indeed, now people who allow their dogs, even dogs bred for fighting, to roam throughout the night the corridors of blocks of flats which have entryphones, will be caught by the amendment, and will be responsible for those criminal actions, as will the dog owners referred to by the hon. Gentleman, who visit blocks of flats which, although enlosed, are opened by entryphone or other form of access. I hope that, with those assurances, the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I am sorry that I did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before

Column 1265

the Minister rose. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us whether the wording was devised by her Department? The concept of a public place

"where it is not permitted to be"

seems to raise as many questions as it answers. "Permitted" by whom? When cases come to court, will the wording be sufficiently precise to meet the point that the whole House is trying to meet? I know that it is a late stage in the passage of the Bill to deal with that important issue. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) rightly said, the word "permitted" suggests a byelaw or other rubric operating in the area. I am far from satisfied that we have got the drafting right.

Mrs. Rumbold : I think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants. As I said earlier, the amendment was introduced at the Committee stage and was examined thereafter both by our advisers and by the House of Lords. Without the amendment, the criminal offences in the Bill which apply in public places could not apply in the communal areas of blocks of flats. For that reason, because there was a lacuna in the drafting, it was important to make it clear that such areas are public places where people sometimes let dogs roam. If there were nothing in the legislation to catch such people the measure would not be effective. The amendment is an extension of the definition of a public place.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.