| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for the careful way in which my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to deal with my general points about the Bill's impact on rural areas, but I want to press him further.
Of course the Bill will not apply to agricultural land or to where hunts go over farmland, but it could apply to verges and the centres of villages, and it could be used by local authorities as an instrument to attack hunts. On shoots on the edges of villages, people cross roads and often shoot close to villages. We need an absolute assurance that local authorities that are opposed to legitimate country sporting interests cannot in any way use the Bill to attack those interests. I think that my hon. Friend is making that point, but I want it firmly on the record.
Mr. Clappison:
I am trying hard to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I think he will find in the Bill. I clearly understand the point he makes about the wide variety of sporting interests, such as hunting, shooting and fishing, which involve dogs.
Mr. Clappison:
The hon. Lady may be aware of the fact that fishermen often enjoy taking their dogs with them.
Mr. John Carlisle:
On a point of elucidation for the hon. Lady while we are talking about dogs and fishing--perhaps she should be aware that the labrador, of which I am a proud owner, was originally a fishing dog, and was used in Canada to bring fish out of the water. When fishermen who are trying to land a catch have difficulty in bringing it on to the bank, they often ask their dog to help them. Heaven help us if, apart from his keep net, each fisherman had to carry a pooper scoop.
Mr. Clappison:
The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his compendious knowledge of sporting activities, into which he has superb personal insight. Having had the benefit of his knowledge on the Bill's impact on sporting activities, I think that the House can say that there will have been no dogs that did not bark in the night. I hope that I have been able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the reassurance he seeks.
I should now like to move on to the wider issues involving country areas, and amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which deal with roads and verges. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said on the subject. We must look at the exclusions contained in the Bill and bear it in mind that the decision has to be taken, in the first instance, by the local authority.
One hopes that, when places such as verges in country areas or other land close to roads are not excluded under the Bill, local authorities will use a bit of common sense. Sometimes local people will be concerned to ensure that such areas are kept free of dog mess, which can be as big a problem in those areas as in others which are more obvious candidates for inclusion as designated areas.
Mr. Hargreaves:
I do not share my hon. Friend's confidence in local authorities' ability to show sensitivity or good faith. The fact that so many local authorities are populated by people similar to the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who does not have
Mr. Clappison:
I have listened carefully to the good points that have been made. Local authorities currently have the power to make byelaws. The measure merely streamlines the means by which they can be brought into force, and avoids some of the problems that have arisen from the present time-consuming procedure.
I am wary about irresponsible local authorities that do not heed local opinion. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) might draw reassurance from the fact that there have been many celebrated cases in which local authorities have not behaved sensibly over byelaws. In some cases, local authorities have stimulated great controversy over the issue of imposing byelaws that affect dog owners.
Nothing infuriates people in this country more than inappropriate byelaws--that applies to both views: those who want the byelaws and those who do not. There are a large number of dog owners in this country--2 million dog owners are members of the Kennel Club; there are about 5 million or 6 million dog owners and 7 million dogs in this country. Any local authority that does not behave sensibly will find itself in a lot of trouble and controversy with people who feel passionately about the subject, even though they do not always become exercised about politics generally.
Mr. Thomason:
Does the Minister agree that it would be an absurd situation for a bridle path or a public footway that crosses over agricultural land--which is clearly excluded by the Bill--to be designated in the manner required by the Bill? Is that not a nonsense that should be avoided?
Mr. Clappison:
I am certainly alive to the concerns that have been expressed. If my hon. Friends reflect carefully, they will see that the concerns are met in many respects on the face of the Bill. I am alive to the points that have been made about bridleways and about long-distance walkers, and the effect that the Bill may have on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) shared an interesting experience with us about his long-distance walk with Freddie.
One hopes that there is common sense in this regard--that those who venture on long-distance walks do not have to carry pooper scoops and that these regulations are used in a sensible way.
Mr. Jenkin:
My hon. Friend the Minister is dealing with these points with tremendous care. Following the previous intervention, it occurs to me that many of these bridleways and footpaths run across private land--that they are merely rights of way and that they do not comprise land. Therefore, the provision allowing private landowners to opt their land out of the Bill conflicts with
Mr. Clappison:
Clause 3(1)(b) contains the answer to my hon. Friend's concern. It states:
that is, the failure to use the pooper scoop. That range of definitions, that variety of authorities, which the clause contemplates being able to opt out of the Bill will meet my hon. Friend's concerns.
Mr. Thomason:
I suggest to my hon. Friend that that may not be the effect of clause 3(1)(b), because no occupier or other person has control of the land on which the footpath is sited and is open to the general public. There might be an owner, but the ownership of the freehold of bridlepaths, particularly where they have become green lanes, is often not easy to determine. Therefore, the consent--which is, in any event, a positive action--may not be easily available.
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend is a lawyer of some distinction and experience, and it may well be that, in his branch of the law, he has had some experience of rights of way, an important issue that comes before those involved in the law. It had been my impression that there was a satisfactory exemption under clause 3. Before I vanish into the mists of legal technicality and the law on rights of way, I shall address my hon. Friend's concerns by writing to him on the subject.
Mr. Leigh:
I am worried about this: it shows up the problem of discussing the Bill in such detail so late in the process--although I am rather glad we are. I know that the Minister is doing his best, but I believe that he has not answered the serious point made by my hon. Friends on clause 3(1)(b), which will now be known as the Ridgeway point.
The Ridgeway is a series of long-distance footpaths, and I do not think, on the face of the Bill, that it will be excluded. There is no obvious owner. In parts, the Ridgeway is as wide as the Chamber, and it runs for 150 miles. I do not know whether anyone owns it--someone may in theory. It is a huge, long-distance footpath that is used by tens of thousands of dog owners every year. To be fair, the Minister has not answered the point. We should have an answer before we finish the proceedings this morning.
Mr. Clappison:
I may not be familiar with Hampstead heath, but I am familiar with long-distance footpaths--which hon. Members may doubt, and I shall keep to myself how far I get along them.
"the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to his failing to do so"--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |