| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Fabricant: Before my hon. Friend finishes, may I refer him to amendment No. 27, in my name? I shall not press it, but it makes an important point about dogs being used by Her Majesty's armed forces or by Customs and Excise, and about police dogs, and fire and ambulance service dogs. Will they not be exempted?
Hon. Members will know that every day the police bring sniffer dogs into the Chamber--I look around nervously, but I see no poop to be scooped. Is my hon. Friend saying that in the course of their duties, the police should be scooping their dogs' poop?
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend makes an understandable point in his own way--although perhaps I have already dealt with the spirit of his question in my description of what might amount to a reasonable excuse for a member of the emergency services. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I urge him not to try to put too many exemptions on the face of the Bill, but to rely on the defence of reasonable excuse, which we can rely on our magistrates courts to apply with common sense.
Mr. Hunter:
I endorse the Minister's comments. While reading through our proceedings on the similar Bill that was introduced last Session, during which the then Minister produced the figures, I noted that the defence of reasonable excuse is to be found 957 times in more than 400 statutes enacted over the past 150 years. It is a well-established form of defence. Were we to embark on
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that if I had not received the assurance from the British Field Sports Society, I would not be promoting the Bill. I have looked through the list of exemptions, and I cannot recall having taken part in any field sports over the past 40 years that are not covered. I think that the list is foolproof, and I feel satisfied. So I hope that my hon. Friend will pay heed to my arguments.
Mr. John Carlisle:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, especially as he and I are both wearing the British Field Sports Society tie this morning, to show our solidarity and support for such activities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, as will be the whole sports lobby, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, albeit by a minority of Opposition Members.
Mr. Thomason:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Fabricant:
I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 24, leave out '3' and insert '1'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient, to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 2, line 24, leave out '3' and insert '2'.
No. 34, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 3.
Mr. Fabricant:
I rise to speak wearing my John Lewis, Milton Keynes tie.
Mr. John Carlisle:
Bought in the sale.
These probing amendments relate to the value of the fine. I refer hon. Members to clause 3(2), which makes it clear that the fine on summary conviction will be set at level 3. I understand that that is the maximum fine of £1,000. Amendment No. 25 would set that fine at level 1, which is equivalent to a £200 maximum fine. Amendment No. 24, which contradicts amendment No. 25 and is mutually exclusive, states that the fine should be set at level 2, which is equivalent to £500.
I tabled the amendments simply to give hon. Members the opportunity to consider whether a maximum fine of £1,000 is too much and should be set at either £500 or £200. I accept, however, that the size of the fine will be up to the discretion of the judge.
Amendment No. 34 would remove clause 4. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), have spoken about the over-zealous nature of some local councils. Clause 4 relates to the fixed penalty notices that can be issued by an authorised officer of a local authority. If one were to indulge in a flight of fancy, one could imagine a phenomenon far more dangerous and ominous than the
appearance of traffic wardens on our streets some 20 years ago: imagine the prospect of a dog warden handing out fixed penalty notices.
Hon. Members may wish to consider removing clause 4 so that the issue of a penalty notice has to be dealt with in a court of law. I accept, however, that hon. Members might consider that the powers given to local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices, despite and notwithstanding the dangers of over-zealous officials, would reduce the burden on the courts.
Mr. Clappison:
I have listened carefully to the brief arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I believe that the level 3 fine is appropriate, given the levels of fine for other types of offences. We should also bear it in mind that we are seeking to send out a message that we take dog fouling seriously, because it causes justifiable concern to many of our constituents. I therefore believe that a level 3 fine would be an appropriate penalty for those prosecuted for the offence.
I cannot support amendment No. 34, which would remove the power of a local authority to issue a fixed penalty notice. That could have some undesirable and possibly unintended outcomes; for example, in certain circumstances it could lead to local authorities not prosecuting or the courts becoming over-burdened. It is important that the fixed penalty regime should remain in the Bill.
Mr. Hunter:
I note the probing amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).
I should like to draw particular attention to my hon. Friend's argument about amendment No. 25. It is important to remember that the current maximum fine for a litter offence is £2,500. That is considerably more than the maximum fine envisaged under the Bill, and a certain school of thought would argue that failure to clear up after a dog is worse than merely dropping litter. That argument is worth exploring. The Bill should stand as it is. The level of fine is right; it is both a deterrent and a punishment for an extremely unpleasant offence.
Mr. Fabricant:
As no other hon. Members have suggested that fines should be at any level other than level 3, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Hunter:
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 32, leave out
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 35, at end insert
Mr. Hunter:
Amendment Nos. 9 and 10 seek to grant local authorities the facility to retain dog fouling byelaws
Clause 6(3) provides that any dog fouling byelaws that have been replaced by poop-scoop designations will cease to have effect 10 years after the enactment of the Bill. The 10-year period does not apply to byelaws made by local authorities other than those defined in clause 7. In England, that means in effect that byelaws made by county and parish councils will remain in force, although by virtue of clause 6(4) they cannot have effect if designation exists on the land.
However, there is a class of district council byelaws that would be subject to the 10-year cut-off but should perhaps be allowed to remain--those that apply to land to which the Bill cannot. I am thinking particularly of land described in clause 1. We would not wish to remove existing byelaws for land where the Bill does not allow designation. Local authorities may therefore retain existing dog fouling byelaws for land such as rural commons. That is what the amendments seek to achieve.
Clause 6 would ensure that where an offence could be committed under clause 3 or under a dog fouling byelaw, no offence is committed under the byelaw. Put simply, the Bill, if enacted, will supersede any existing byelaw. In conjunction with that, it must be right to grant local authorities the facility to retain dog fouling byelaws for land where the Bill does not allow designation.
Mr. Clappison:
The Government consider it important that when a designation is introduced, no local authority dog fouling byelaws should remain in force in the same area as the designation. We fully support the effect of clause 6(2)(a) because it would mean that local authorities need not be concerned that they might have overlooked an old byelaw on dog fouling. Similarly, we support the 10-year transition period. However, there will be local authority dog fouling byelaws that apply to land that cannot be designated because it is excluded by clause 1. We would not wish such existing dog fouling byelaws to cease to have effect under clause 6(3). We accept the amendment for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.
1 pm
'in relation to any land'.
'in relation to any land to which this Act applies'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |