SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT (Hansard, 24 July 1991)

§ 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 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 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.