House of Commons
Friday 22 March 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
9.36 am
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'and (3)' and insert 'to (3A)'.
Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 1, line 8, after 'alongside', insert--
'(a) a bridleway or public footpath, or
(b) '.
No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out first 'road' and insert
No. 3, in page 1, line 9, leave out second 'road' and insert 'carriageway'.
No. 20, in page 1, line 10, leave out '40' and insert '30'.
No. 11, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 18 and insert--
No. 4, in page 1, leave out line 14.
No. 12, in page 1, line 14, at end insert--
No. 22, in page 1, line 14, at end insert--
No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after 'predominantly', insert 'marshland,'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 18, at end insert--
No. 7, in page 1, line 26, at end insert--
No. 13, in page 1, leave out lines 27 and 28.
No. 8, in page 2, leave out line 3.
Mr. Hunter:
A plethora of amendments have been grouped together--14 in all, eight of which are tabled in
Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 seek to provide that, where land is regulated under powers that have been conferred by a private Act of Parliament, the person, institution, organisation or company exercising those powers can exclude the application of the Bill's provisions to that land. The point is that that would allow any byelaws made under the private Act to continue, which may be particularly desirable to ensure consistency of approach where the land regulated by the private Act covers more than one local authority area.
The appearance of these amendments owes much to the positive input of Mr. Paul Double, Assistant City Remembrancer, City of London, to whom I express my thanks.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware that my Bill seeks to provide local authorities with the ability, subject to certain exemptions, to designate poop-scoop zones--land which is open to the air and to which the public have access. The exceptions are set out in clause 1, and have the effect that local authorities will not be able to so designate public land in the open countryside.
The Bill is designed to deal with the problem of dog fouling where the problem is greatest: paths, pavements, parks, recreational grounds and other public areas of villages, towns and cities.
Local authority designations under the Bill will supersede dog fouling byelaws on lands to which the Bill applies.
Here comes the relevance of amendments Nos. 1 and 6: I am aware that there are instances in which land is regulated by a private Act of Parliament and in which Parliament has given the person, company, organisation or institution regulating the land the ability to make byelaws.
For example, a private Act of Parliament has allowed utility companies, especially water companies, to regulate land. A number of local authorities have similar powers, particularly the City of London. The byelaws that those people, institutions, companies or organisations can make include, of course, those on dog fouling. As the Bill stands, a local authority can designate such land, and the existing byelaws could stand by virtue of clause 6(4), but no one could be prosecuted under those byelaws where a designation under the Bill is in force. The byelaws effectively go into suspended animation.
It seems only right that the regulators of land by private Act of Parliament should be able to decide whether they wish their land to be subject to the provisions of the Bill, and potential designation by local authorities, or whether they wish their byelaws to continue to have effect. We are dealing with circumstances different from those governing privately owned land, where Parliament has not given a person, institution, company or organisation regulating that land the ability to make byelaws. In the latter case, the Bill protects the private landowners' interests under subsections (3) and (5) of clause 1. That would allow the private landowner to render a designation ineffective if he so wished, by allowing him to consent to dog owners failing to clear up after their dogs.
The amendment is appropriate for a further reason. There are cases in which land regulated by private Act of Parliament lies in more than one local authority area.
Hampstead heath, for example, is regulated by the City of London according to private Act of Parliament, but the land lies in three different London boroughs. Wimbledon common and Putney heath lie in two different London boroughs, but each has its own regulating authority by virtue of a private Act of Parliament. One local authority may wish to designate its part of Hampstead heath, Wimbledon common or Putney heath as a poop-scoop zone. The other regulating local authority, however, may decide not to do so.
To put it mildly, such a hypothetical example could cause considerable enforcement problems. The regulators of the land might well conclude that the retention of their byelaws is by far the best option. To put it simply, amendments Nos. 1 and 6 allow the regulators of the land to take into account such factors when deciding whether the Bill's provisions should have effect on their land. That is the gist of the amendments, which I commend to the House.
The second sub-group of amendments--Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8--address a potential loophole in the Bill that came to light after Committee stage. The amendments would ensure the inclusion of footways and footpaths that are not subject to any speed limits for the obvious reason that no traffic travels on them. Such footways and footpaths are among the most popular walks for dog owners and non-dog owners alike, because no traffic is allowed on them. Without the amendments, however, in certain circumstances they would not be designated. That would be absurd; hence the need for the amendments.
Currently the Bill excludes roads with a speed limit of 40 mph or less, for safety reasons. It is my intention to remove from the Bill all high-speed roads where it could obviously be dangerous to clear up after a dog. That is the sensible way to proceed.
The difficulty that came to light after Committee is that the Bill, as originally drafted, relies upon the definition of a road as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That Act states that a road means
The problem is that that definition extends to footpaths and footways, whether or not they are beside carriageways. Since driving is banned on those pathways, there is no reason for a speed limit to be set; therefore, the provisions of the Bill, as originally drafted, could not be applied to them--even if they were surrounded by a built-up area with speed restrictions on all roads.
It would clearly be entirely unacceptable if some of the most popular walking routes for dog owners and non-owners alike could not be designated poop-scoop zones. The amendments are therefore designed to replace the definition from the 1984 Act cited in the Bill with that in the Highways Act 1980, in particular the latter's use of the term "carriageway" to indicate vehicular use. The amendments deliver my original intention.
Under amendment No. 2, the exclusion relates to land
a highway, which is carriageway. The other three amendments are consequential upon that. I have no doubt that, without those amendments, the Bill would lose most of its value.
Amendment No. 4 would remove the exclusion of all national park land, and some explanation is called for. As I have previously explained, my Bill has the simple and single objective of enabling local authorities to deal more effectively with the unpleasant, anti-social and health risk problem of dog fouling where that problem is greatest--on the paths, pavements, parks, recreational grounds and so on of our villages, towns and cities.
The problem does not exist to the same extent in open countryside, where there is greater tolerance and, almost invariably, less concentration of dog walkers and non-dog walkers. Human and canine feet share the same ground less often, and the natural ecosystem works more effectively, and faeces become part of that natural cycle.
Efforts to deal with the problem of dog fouling become more confused and controversial because of the use of dogs in the countryside for agricultural and other working practices as well as for sport. Therefore, the clause 1 exclusions effectively mean that the Bill does not apply to the countryside.
'highway which comprises a carriageway'.
'(3) This Act does not apply to land used for agriculture'.
'( ) land primarily used for sporting purposes;'.
'( ) land at the seaside between the low water and high water marks;'.
'(3A) Where a private Act confers powers for the regulation of any land, the person entitled to exercise those powers may, by notice in writing given to the local authority in whose area the land is situated, exclude the application of this Act to that land.'
' "carriageway" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;'.
"any length of highway or any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes".
"comprised in or running alongside"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |