|
Mr. Ruffley: I seek two points of clarification. We suggest that criteria should be set out that would be applied to determine the necessity for the making of a dog control order in relation to any offence. In other words, there should be criteria for explaining what the trigger threshold should be. I am not entirely satisfied by what the Minister says because one could imagine a situation in which an over-zealous local authority takes a heavy-handed and disproportionate view of irresponsible behaviour on the part of a minority of dog owners—a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and that may well inconvenience the large majority of responsible owners in an area. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Department provides national guidelines to local authorities on what the threshold should be before they trigger an order.
The second point of clarification is on appeals. We require elucidation on that. With regard to the procedure for appeals, it is not immediately clear how the appeal mechanism will be established. Could the Minister give an indication of how a dog owner could mount an appeal in the face of an order under which that owner has committed an offence? That is in the context of the necessary checks and balances against over-zealous local authorities.
3.45 pm
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has raised two interesting points, on which I hope I can satisfy him immediately. The first is the concept of a ''trigger threshold''. The whole point of taking that approach is to minimise the extent to which the processes are controlled by central Government, although there will be regulations and guidance to ensure that the power is not abused. Such a threshold puts local decision-making into the hands of the local authority, be that the principal authority or the parish or town council. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should devolve that decision-making power to the local level and simultaneously renationalise it. The enthusiasm of Conservative Members for nationalisation on a point of detail that would involve a lot of bureaucracy never fails to amaze me.
Mr. Ruffley: The Minister cannot get away with that. Behind the amendment is not a suggestion that there should be mandatory guidelines binding the hands of local authorities, but rather that there should be a non-statutory and non-mandatory guideline that gives everyone a clue to the level of mischief that needs to be extant before a dog control order should be introduced. It would not be direct control or centralisation on a statutory basis from the centre, but merely guidance to warn off over-zealous local authorities that use their decentralised powers inappropriately.
Alun Michael: That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman now says that he wants a threshold to be non-statutory, but, if it were, it could not be on the face of the Bill. He also says it would be non-mandatory, in which case it would not even be a subject for guidance. If the threshold were neither statutory nor mandatory, it would merely be an expression of opinion. I have no objection to those on the Opposition Front Bench expressing an opinion; indeed, I am delighted to hear opinions being expressed by a Whip on this occasion, having fulfilled the role of speaking Whip myself. Speaking can be quite enjoyable if one has been suffering in silence for a long time, as happens in that important parliamentary role.
My point is that we are devolving responsibility within a clear arrangement so that local authorities can make their decisions. The powers are there for regulations and guidance to be provided in due course. If we find that local authorities are running amok with intrusive and inappropriate use of these clauses—something I think is so unlikely as to be difficult to contemplate—we would be able to issue regulations. However, if that is not necessary, let us not add to the bureaucracy.
Matthew Green: Is this not a case where the local electorate should be trusted? If a council were so heavy-handed as to introduce regulations that annoyed every dog owner in the area, there is a fair chance that the councillors who did so would be thrown out at the next set of elections. Were a Tory
Column Number: 227
council to do that, I am sure the incoming Liberal Democrat council would deregulate and remove the over-zealous arrangements.
Alun Michael: It is not for me to intrude on the private grief of Opposition Members about who will do the worst in future elections, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Let local authorities deal with these matters within the framework that will be set out in due course and that will give them the maximum flexibility to deal in the appropriate way with the problems in their area.
That is also the answer to the issue of an appeal. Let us be clear what we are talking about. The clause to which the amendment is addressed concerns the power to make a dog control order. The clause does not concern appeals against a fixed penalty notice or a prosecution; rather, it suggests that there should be a right of appeal against the making of an order. As I have indicated, we do not think that that is appropriate. It will be the local authority—the local elected body—taking that decision. Those bodies have all sorts of arrangements governing the way in which they take decisions. They have to act within their powers and are accountable to their local electorate, so I think that we should leave it to them, rather than adding to local bureaucracy by requiring them to create an appeals process against the making of an order.
As I said earlier, there is always a challenge if a local authority gets the process wrong; there is the ombudsman process and the process of judicial review. I would be extremely surprised if it ever became necessary to use any of those fall-back provisions. They are there in the generality of the law, however, should they be needed. I hope that, with that clear explanation, the Bill as drafted is appropriate to these measures and will have the agreement of everybody on the Committee.
Mr. Ruffley: I have listened to what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 56 and 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Primary and secondary authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): This clause defines primary and secondary authorities. A primary authority is
''(a) a district council in England;
(b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council;
(c) a London borough council''
and so on. A secondary authority is
Column Number: 228
''(a) a parish council in England;
(b) a community council in Wales.''
The definitions relate to other clauses, which state that one person will be designated to have authority in such matters. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify, before we vote on this, what happens in an area which crosses the borders, particularly between England and Wales. Who has authority over these matters where there are cross-border disputes?
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Perhaps I can explain what the clause does, and then respond.
Clause 58 defines local authorities in England, and county or county boroughs in Wales, as primary authorities, and parish councils and community councils in Wales as secondary authorities. The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—whichever is appropriate—can also designate other organisations carrying out statutory functions as being secondary authorities. It is important to note that point. Such bodies could include national parks authorities or commons conservators with existing dog byelaw-making powers, for instance, and it provides a comprehensive way of dealing with any issues in terms of what bodies should be able to exercise those powers.
I am not sure that there is an issue in relation to the border any more than arises between the border of one local authority and another—or, indeed, one parish council and another. Clearly, each has powers within its area, and it is sensible, where possible, for organisations that have a common border to talk to each other. I would not be at all surprised, for instance, if a number of parish councils sometimes worked together, took the same approach and jointly employed staff, as is increasingly happening on a number of issues. That ensures that they have both the local sensitivity that arises from having such a local body and gain benefits through working together. The hub-and-spoke model has operated in other places where a larger parish council can work with others, or a town council can work with surrounding parish councils. I envisage a similar degree of co-operation when issues arise on borders between local authorities. The same would apply if the border happened to be not only between an English county and a Welsh unitary authority, but the border between England and Wales. An authority would be responsible for the area of land within its boundaries.
Mr. Evans: I assume that similar problems have existed. We have talked about cross-border disputes in other pieces of legislation, but we are now looking at cases that could involve, as the Minister says, borders between Wales and England. However, they could also involve borders between one district and another. Working together is fine, but does the Minister foresee that the co-operation would extend to fining?
Alun Michael: That raises interesting theoretical issues. Would people, for example, take their dogs across parish boundaries to foul in the areas where the fines are lower? Somehow, I do not think that such issues are likely to arise. It is likely that the issues
Column Number: 229
would be similar in adjoining parishes. Such parishes would, for instance, be likely to take a common decision in equity on fines.
Of course, the border could be between a parish in one county and a parish in another, depending on what body had undertaken the arrangements. If, at the end of the day, issues needed to be addressed in regulations and guidance, the capacity to do that would remain. However, I hope that common sense would dictate most of the responses between different authorities.
| 
