|
Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention of the provisions is not to tangle up small projects in a great deal of red tape or bureaucracy. We will not expect people who are building extensions to their homes or garages to produce a site plan, because that would be excessive. He is right that we need to think about the arrangements to deal with the ''specified value'' to which reference was made. That
Column Number: 219
requires consideration, which is why that is best done through regulations. Values of land will vary in different parts of the country, and the type of land will vary, for example contaminated land will require particular management plans. That variation can be covered by the powers in the Bill to set the arrangements for managing and disposing of waste created in the course of a project.
It is true that there is an element of regulation, and no companies like regulation. However, companies often point out to me—they made a powerful case and I have a great deal of sympathy with it—that good companies take regulations seriously. There is a cost involved in applying standards, whether they be health and safety, environmental or these new standards. Other companies undercut good companies because they bend the rules, cut corners and do not apply standards. We should not tolerate that, because it is bad not only for environmental standards, but for fair competition.
We understand the perfectly reasonable points that the hon. Gentleman makes. That is why the regulations will follow and will be scrutinised. We will consult with those to whom the regulations are relevant. The regulations will also be subject to a regulatory impact assessment, so that people can see clearly who is involved, who they apply to and what the implications are. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's points, but I assure him that they will be dealt with in the regulations that will follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Power to make dog control orders
Mr. Ruffley: I beg to move amendment
No. 107, in clause 55, page 50, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 100, in clause 55, page 50, line 19, at end add—
'( ) The appropriate person must consult with interested parties before an offence under subsection (3) is prescribed by regulation.'.
No. 110, in clause 55, page 50, line 27, at end insert—
'( ) Regulations under subsection (4) shall provide that no dog control order shall apply in respect of any working dog being used for the driving or tending of cattle or sheep.'.
No. 101, in clause 56, page 31, line 10, at end add—
'( ) The appropriate person must consult with the appropriate parties before regulations are made prescribing the procedure to be followed by primary or secondary authorities for the making of dog control orders.'.
No. 102, in clause 56, page 51, line 10, at end add—
'(c) the criteria which shall be applied to determine the necessity for the making of a dog control order in relation to any offence.'.
No. 103, in clause 56, page 51, line 10, at end add—
Column Number: 220
'(d) The procedure to be established to enable an appeal to be made by the public against a dog control order being made.'.
Mr. Ruffley: We are now into the dogs section of the Bill, which will attract interest even beyond the Committee. Before going into the specifics of the amendments, I should put on record the concern that was expressed to us about lack of consultation with interested parties. The reform of the system of dog byelaws is welcome. The question is whether it is being done effectively in the provisions of this part of the Bill. It is, of course, the case that the current regime—
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The hon. Gentleman just said that there has been a lack of consultation. I assure him that that is not the case. There has been wide and extensive consultation for a considerable period. I have circulated to the Committee a letter that follows a meeting with two organisations that had concerns about elements of the Bill. Their concerns involved misapprehensions about what needs to be in the Bill and what needs to be in delegated legislation. There has been very wide consultation.
Mr. Ruffley: We may get on to some of the points that have been made later. I hope that the Minister will respond. I hear what he said. He was also courteous enough to send me a copy of a letter that relates to a later clause. I will not try your patience with it now, Mr. Taylor, but I thank the Minister for that point, to which we will return.
There is no doubt that the regime is costly and difficult to administer and that reform is called for. The clean neighbourhoods consultation set out proposals to streamline the dog byelaw system, which received almost unanimous support from local authorities. However, some authorities also said that they would welcome the chance to designate areas in which dog access is restricted, while pointing out that such a measure would need policing. That is another theme in the proposals—the adequacy of policing. That will crop up later in our deliberations.
I wonder why various bodies have said that the consultation was not exactly as they would have liked. The bodies I have in mind are the respective bodies that include certain members of the National Dog Warden Association, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club.
Amendment No. 107 is a probing amendment, because we are not entirely satisfied that the ambit of subsection (3) is sufficiently well drawn. It has been said to us that there is some doubt as to how the powers in clause 55 will actively improve the provisions of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which makes it a criminal offence not to remove dog faeces from designated land immediately. The National Dog Warden Association is involved in the front line of dealing with issues as specific as that. The 1996 Act was widely welcomed by those with an interest in this area of policy.
Column Number: 221
I am advised—perhaps the Minister can correct me if this information is not correct—that, during the consultation period, there was no detailed discussion of the 1996 Act. Will he confirm that, because it has been said to us that this was a major oversight by the Department, which is now being dealt with by repealing the previous legislation. That has proved popular with those working on the front line.
Another point arises concerning the limit on the number of dogs one person can keep in a non-commercial environment. What is the precise definition of this restriction? Is it intended that there will be a universal maximum number forming the restriction? I notice from the explanatory notes that regulations will tell us the scope of the offence, giving us the detail that is not in the Bill, but it would be useful to have some indication of what scope each of the individual new offences will have in the regulations.
Amendment No. 100 would require that the ''appropriate person'', the Secretary of State
''must consult interested parties before an offence under subsection (3) is prescribed by regulations.''
Does the Minister believe that any further consultation is necessary now or in the future if more regulations are made? The amendment would place the necessary obligation on the Secretary of State transparently and clearly in the Bill. To have that there would not be contentious.
I have other points on clause 56, relating to duties that we would like to place on the Secretary of State, but would the Minister reply to those arguments in the shape of our amendments?
Matthew Green: We have tabled amendment No. 110 in this group, which I hope the Minister will reassure me is completely unneeded, because he can envisage no circumstances in which that could ever happen. The reason for the amendment, which was drawn up with the help of the National Farmers Union, which welcomes the new dog control orders, was concern about the extension of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which is being repealed, specifically excluded agricultural land, moor, heath and common land from the provisions enabling local authorities to designate land to impose poop scoop requirements on persons in charge of dogs on land where the public are entitled or permitted to have access. Since then, with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, a lawful right of access to just the type of open country that was excluded from the 1996 Act has come into force—subject to walkers keeping their dogs on a short lead at lambing time and in the vicinity of livestock.
Use of the CROW Act will likely make apparent that there are specific areas of farmland where dog control orders will be required to combat dog-related nuisance. We have in mind the immediate vicinity of a car park, which would be heavily transited by people using the countryside, or a particular piece of countryside used as a route to wider areas. Those heavily used sections could create a problem of
Column Number: 222
nuisance from fouling or interference with livestock. Dog control orders might be very welcome in those areas.
However, it would clearly be absurd if the dog control order included the working dogs of the farmer managing the land. Committee members would find ridiculous the image of a farmer using dogs to round up his sheep and running behind them with a poop scoop. The amendment would exclude working dogs on agricultural land from dog control orders for that reason. There may be a need for dog control orders on areas of land that are worked by working dogs, but the working dogs themselves need to be exempt from their requirements.
That may become a problem in my constituency, as it contains a fair amount of land affected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and it could become a problem in other hon. Members' constituencies. Will the Minister assure us that by one means or another, whether in the Bill or not, he will resist enforcing that measure?
3.30 pm
| 
