House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Mar 1996 (pt 14)

Mr. Thomason: The amendments in my name relate to three specific and separate issues. Two of them are probing amendments, and the third argument has largely been covered in earlier debates.

Amendment No. 18 is designed to explore whether it is appropriate to leave the reasonable excuse defence in the Bill in its present form. That question was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who was concerned about what constitutes "reasonable" in the context of the Bill. It is a

22 Mar 1996 : Column 655

term which we use frequently but which, for obvious reasons, we seek not to define because it allows for a great deal of flexibility.

I wonder how appropriate such flexibility may be when it comes to certain defences. Perhaps the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will be able to answer my questions. What about someone who said that he was late for an appointment and did not therefore use a pooper scoop? Would that amount to a defence in a court under the clause? What if someone was looking the other way and did not notice that the dog had created a mess? What if the weather was inclement? Those may appear petty points, but they will be raised in courts of law at some stage. As the Bill stands, I am not sure whether they would be considered reasonable excuses.

A person may be feeling ill; someone else may forget to take a pooper scoop with him. Lack of knowledge of the law may not be a defence, but those may be considered reasonable excuses.

I also understand that a reasonable excuse can form an important defence in relation to a number of areas touched on in earlier debate, and it may be right to leave some such provision in the Bill.

My second probing amendment, No. 17, has to do with age. I appreciate that there is an age below which there is no criminal responsibility, but those nearing the age of 16 may face prosecution under the Bill for not having a pooper scoop with them. Yet we know that children are often left in charge of animals and told to take them for walks.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend keeps referring to the possession of a pooper scoop. I understand that the faeces have to be cleared away, but I am not sure whether the Bill specifies how that should be done.

Mr. Thomason: The Bill refers to a device, if I remember rightly. Indeed, a number of different devices may be used. My point concerns whether it is fair that youngsters of 14 or 15, or even younger, should face prosecution for not clearing up a mess.

The third argument dealt with in the amendments has been largely covered in our previous debate, so I shall not dwell on it at length because I want the Bill to make progress. I am conscious that this proposed legislation ran into difficulties in the other place after presentation in a similar form by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). Despite some of the assurances that we have received today, there is still a danger that the owners of dogs used for sporting or similar purposes will be prosecuted. One has visions of people in shooting parties walking behind their retriever with a poop scoop, or similar device, in case a bird came down on land that was included in the Bill--what nonsense that would be.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has given assurances that the Bill does not intend to hinder sport in any way, and I do not seek to raise the pros and cons of hunting and shooting in this debate, but it is terribly important that the Bill does not become involved in that issue and thereby possibly lose its way in the other place.

Mr. John Carlisle: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might take a keen interest in my remarks, because I know of

22 Mar 1996 : Column 656

your interest in the subject of shooting. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press the promoter of the Bill and the Minister that there should be no doubt whatever that any dog involved in any sporting activity, particularly hunting and shooting, which has been mentioned this morning, must be totally exempt from the Bill in every possible way. We do not need further reassurances from another place. We want them here and now.

Mr. Thomason: That is indeed the point that I was making. I am conscious of the time and so will not add further to what I have said.

12.45 pm

Mr. Clappison: I begin with amendment No. 18, an important amendment, which deals with the defence of reasonable excuse. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). I appreciate the way in which he put his argument and tried to establish what might amount to a reasonable excuse. I have to remind him that in many byelaws there is already such a defence. In this case, it is appropriate that it should be included in the Bill and that people should have the opportunity afforded by such a defence.

Broadly speaking, it is important to strike a balance between maintaining the effective scope of the Bill, making it an effective and enforceable measure without inappropriate exemptions, and the flexibility that is necessary to do justice in individual cases. That is why we have the defence of reasonable excuse, and it should apply in these circumstances as well. As my hon. Friend will know, it will be for magistrates courts, if necessary, to listen to those cases and to use their common sense and experience and decide whether, in all the circumstances and after hearing the evidence, a reasonable excuse has been established.

On my hon. Friend's first example, which he understandably gave, one would imagine that, subject to the circumstances and the evidence that the magistrates hear, being late for an appointment would not normally be a reasonable excuse. It might be different, however, if it was construed to include police officers or members of the emergency services on the way to an emergency, taking their dog with them. That would be different. In every case, it is up to the magistrates to use their common sense and experience, which they do.

Mr. John Carlisle: I wonder whether my hon. Friend, in considering this important amendment, has considered the position of hon. Members coming into this place once the Division bell has rung. Perhaps we would see hon. Members rushing down Whitehall with pooper scoopers--hon. Members do bring their dogs into this place--but missing a Division because they stopped to clear up the mess that their dogs made. Is that covered in the Bill?

Mr. Clappison: We are a House of dog lovers; I know that there are many dog lovers in the House. Hon. Members might have to make a fine judgment on what they are most afraid of--the poop scoop enforcement officer or the usual channels of the House. I think that we can leave that to common sense and discretion in individual cases, although I am being urged not to from certain quarters once again.

22 Mar 1996 : Column 657

Amendment No. 17 proposes an exemption for young people. I appreciate that young people--under 16 years of age in this case--often walk dogs. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove on the amendment, because it is important for young people to be set a good example and for them to set a good example themselves and get into the habit of clearing up after their dogs. One hopes that they will do that throughout their lives. It would be appropriate to keep the provision in force in regard to young people.

We have already been through the sporting issue in some detail, so I hope that the House will not mind ifI do not go over that again, but move on to amendmentNo. 28, which covers older people.

I suppose that in some respects the arguments that apply to young people apply to older people, too. There is no reason why a dog owner over 70 should be in a position any different from that of a younger dog owner. We know that many senior citizens in our constituencies enjoy the companionship of a dog, and especially enjoy taking their dogs for walks, which provides exercise both for themselves and for the dogs. Many have an enjoyable time with their pets. None the less, I am sure that they feel equally strongly about the need for effective and enforceable coverage in the byelaws to deal with irresponsible dog ownership.

In any particular instance, of course, an older citizen's case may fall within the ambit of the defence of reasonable excuse for a failure to clear up. Again, that is a matter for the magistrates courts.

Broadly, it would be wrong to put too many exemptions on the face of the Bill. It would be better to leave them to--

Next Section

Index

Home Page