| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to a good debate in which many important concerns have been ventilated. It is a great pleasure, among other things, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who brought his customary dash of colour to the debate and spoke with true feeling on the subject of life in the countryside and perhaps echoed many of the concerns expressed by hon. Members in the debate. I hope that I will be able to allay some of those concerns.
This group of amendments seems to have brought into focus many of the important issues regarding the Bill. Before I deal with them, however, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on the very clear way in which he explained his amendments and on the way in which he has taken the Bill through its proceedings in the House. I am sure that he will not mind my saying that he has been concerned throughout the proceedings to explain clearly the Bill's purpose and to listen to the concerns that have been expressed to him, to which he has responded clearly.
The Bill is very worth while and is much desired by many local authorities and individuals--by dog owners and non-dog owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has been very careful throughout the Bill's passage to try to respond to the concerns expressed to him so as to target the Bill correctly, making it simpler for local authorities to tackle the problem of dog fouling.
Mr. Fabricant:
While some dog owners have expressed some concern about the Bill, will the Minister confirm that the Kennel Club, the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League and the Pets Advisory Committee are in favour of it?
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. There is no division or distinction in the Bill between dog owners and non-dog owners; it is desired by both groups of people.
Mr. Hargreaves:
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has made a good point. Had he been at Crufts last weekend and met members of the Kennel Club and others, such as breeders, he would realise that, although there is general support for the Bill's principles, there is serious concern about its scope.
Mr. Clappison:
I shall shortly deal in detail with the important question of scope, but I should like to lay that point firmly to rest in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) did. As he rightly said, the Bill has been warmly welcomed by dog owners and by those who represent them because they want to promote responsible dog ownership. The Bill will do precisely that by making it easier for local authorities to deal with the problem of dog fouling, by simplifying and streamlining the way in which they enforce regulations to deal with the problem.
Amendment Nos. 1 and 6, which were spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, are sensible--for the reasons that he set out. The House will be aware that it is possible for landowners, whose land the public have access to, to exempt themselves from the Bill's provisions under clause 3(1)(b). I shall return
shortly to that very important provision because it is relevant to some of the issues that have been raised about activities that occur in the countryside and in other places as well.
Clause 6 also has the effect that where there is an existing byelaw on land that is designated under the new system, the new byelaw will take effect rather than the old one. That provision causes a problem for those who have a byelaw under private Act powers and would have the effect, unless the amendment were passed, of overriding the power to maintain existing byelaws. I think that it is appropriate--for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, in the circumstances of a person, institution or company that has the benefit of a private Act power or byelaw--for them to be put effectively into the same position as a private landlord and to have the opportunity to exclude themselves from designation under this legislation.
Mr. Hargreaves:
On the point of exclusion, will it have to be a positive exclusion, or is there an implicit exclusion in the amendment?
Mr. Clappison:
I should draw my hon. Friend's attention to amendment No. 6, which says:
That is a sensible procedure for someone to go through to exclude his land and to give notice to the local authority. So the answer to my hon. Friend's point is that those people have to take the positive step of giving notice. That is a sensible course to take, and, of course, it makes everyone aware--certainly the local authority--of the position in regard to that land.
Amendment Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8 are sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has been most careful to ensure that the scope of the Act applies widely and appropriately, subject to certain exclusions. As he explained to the House, the Bill as drafted relies on the definition of roads in the Road Traffic Regulation Acts. That would have the effect of excluding many of the areas that my hon. Friend wishes to bring within the Bill's ambit. He is, therefore, remedying that by relying on the definition of carriageway given in the Road Traffic Act 1980, which more effectively gives effect to his underlying intention. If the Bill were not amended in that way, it would produce some rather unusual results, and various areas not subject to any speed limit, such as various pedestrian areas and walkways, would be excluded. I therefore suggest that the amendment is sensible and clarifies the Bill's scope.
I do not propose to say any more about the amendments. They are all sensible amendments that tidy up the operation of the Bill.
I shall say a little more about amendment No. 4, which caused some concern to hon. Members. It is important that their legitimate concerns are laid to rest. Amendment
No. 4 seeks to remove the exclusion of all national park land. As the Bill stands, national park land is excluded from the Bill, so it is impossible for a local authority to apply for designation within national parks. The amendment would remove the exclusion and give local authorities in national parks the ability to designate, for example, streets and recreational land in towns and villages within national parks. That is an important point, and I invite the House to consider it most carefully.
The House will understand that, even without amendment No. 4, under the other exclusions proposed in the Bill, much of the area of a national park will be excluded in any event. Land that is used, for example, for agriculture or for woodlands or which is predominantly moor or heath is currently excluded. The effect of maintaining the exclusion for national parks would be to exclude other areas inside national parks that do not fall into those categories and to take away from local authorities the opportunity to make designations in respect of those areas.
Mr. Jenkin:
Although I have been in another part of the Chamber, I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has said.
Will my hon. Friend dwell for a moment on the issue of land used for woodland? What is his advice about the definition of such land? Does he agree with the definition offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), that it is land that is actively managed for timber, or is that land covered by a much wider definition to include land that happens to be enclosed, or not, as an area that contains trees?
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend's important point is worth analysing. My understanding is that the meaning of "woodland" is that given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North(Mr. Jenkin) to the wording of clause 1(3)(a), which excludes
The inclusion of the word "for" is important.
Judged in the context of the other exclusion contained in that paragraph--"land used for agriculture"--the exemption includes the type of land that is actively used or managed for agriculture and for woodlands. It does not include the type of area about which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North is concerned--woodland per se--which is not actively managed as woodland.
I know that that might have the unfortunate effect of excluding the type of woodlands to which my hon. Friend has already referred--for example, those on Hampstead heath. One of the things that I enjoy about debates on a private Member's Bill is that one finds out lots of things one did not know. I did not know, for example, that there were woodlands on Hampstead heath.
Mr. Fabricant:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Whips will be extremely pleased to know that he is not familiar with Hampstead heath?
"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."
"land used for agriculture or for woodlands".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |