Mr.
Jones: I am sorry to labour the point, but this is a
matter of some importance. The clear impression given by the memorandum
is that WAG would not create a coastal route that affected land that is
the subject of reserved powers, if the Secretary of State withheld
consent. The clarification that I am seeking, which I think the
Minister is giving, is that if the Secretary of State decided, for
whatever reason, that a route was no longer convenient, WAG would
acquiesce and change the path’s
route.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: My understanding reflects the memorandum
to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As he has said, on the
initial implementation of any proposals and on any subsequent
proposals, WAG need to pay heed to, and work with, the Secretary of
State when he states that developments impinge upon reserved matters,
such as defence. That would have to be taken into account and an
alternative route would have to be found. I will write to the hon.
Gentleman and other members of the Committee to clarify precisely that
point, because it is an important issue and we want to ensure that the
Bill is future-proofed. I will also offer any further clarification
that is
needed. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 304
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New Schedule
1“Amendments
of the clean neighbourhoods and environment act
2005 1 The Clean Neighbourhoods and
Environment Act 2005 (c. 16) is amended in accordance with
paragraph
2. Dog control
orders 2 (1) Section 56 (Dog Control
Orders: Supplementary) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5)(b),
insert— “(6)
Regulations made under subsection (4) shall make provision for Natural
England to be included in any consultation to be undertaken before any
dog control order is made where the dog control order is to apply to
all or any part of land which is designated the English coastal route
under section 286 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act
2009.”’.—(Andrew
George.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Andrew
George: I beg to move, That the new schedule be read a
Second
time. I
declare an interest as a dog owner and as someone who lives near the
coast in my
constituency.
Huw
Irranca-Davies:
Mainlander.
Andrew
George: That is right; I am a mainlander. The new schedule
would ensure that Natural England is consulted by a local authority
that wishes to implement a dog control order on coastal paths. I urge
the Committee not to be prejudiced by the totally unacceptable way in
which a minority of dog owners allow their dogs to behave in public
spaces or by their failure to clean up after them, although such issues
cannot be
ignored. The
Kennel Club and other dog-owner organisations are understandably eager
for as full access as possible to the coastal path, but they are
concerned about the frequency, as they see it, with which local
authorities implement control orders, often without proper
consultation. There are 8 million pet dogs in the UK cared for by an
estimated 15 million people, which is an average of almost 12,400
resident dogs per parliamentary constituency. Government statistics
show that dog walkers represent between one third and one half of all
walkers. Dog walkers also represent a cross-section of society, drawn
from across all socio-economic
backgrounds. Research
by Hampshire county council shows that the biggest factor influencing
where dog walkers exercise their dogs is whether they can exercise
their dogs off-lead. If it is not possible to do that within the local
area, more than 40 per cent. say that they would drive further away
from where they live. However, dog owners’ ability to comply
with their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to provide
their dogs off-leash exercise, has sometimes been compromised by the
introduction of another parliamentary measure that restricts their
activities—dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and
Environment Act 2005—especially where no alternative provision
is made. In effect, two Acts are crashing on dog owners and appear to
be in
conflict. DEFRA
guidance accompanying the 2005 Act states that local authorities should
show that dog control orders
are “a
necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the
activities of dogs and those in charge of
them” and
should “balance
the interests of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those
affected by the activities of
dogs”. The
Kennel Club believes that in practice the guidance has been widely
ignored and many local authorities are taking a more restrictive
approach—I use “believes”, because I do not go
along entirely with the club’s approach in every respect.
Furthermore, while local authorities are required to notify Natural
England of
any proposed dog control orders on access land, the club claims that few
appear to have done so. The lack of any appeals process has, according
to the club, allowed some local authorities to ignore the
guidance. To
date, at least 120 councils in England have implemented dog control
orders, sometimes issuing as many as 100 in the local area, although
there could well be more. The Kennel Club believes that approximately
75 authorities already exclude or restrict dogs on their beaches. The
effect of the increasing reduction of access to public open space is
making dog ownership less viable and may therefore negate the many
health, social and economic
benefits. To
balance the issue, the Government should reflect on the potential for
the increased role of Natural England in respect of the introduction of
dog control orders because, in many areas, restrictions on dog access
to the coast has been flouted by dog owners. I give an example from my
constituency. On the north coast, near Hayle, there are between 3.5 and
4 miles of towans or sand dunes. A large section was sold yesterday for
£80,000, and it was on the national news. The towans are planted
predominantly with marram grass and other vegetation such as bracken
heath. The owner of that land thankfully cannot do a lot with it due to
restrictions. There are ground-nesting birds in the area, particularly
at this time of year. Currently, dogs are entitled to exercise off the
lead throughout the year in the area. If Natural England was more
involved in the setting of dog control orders, that might have resulted
in seasonal restrictions on the ability of dog owners to allow their
dogs to exercise off the lead. Over the past decade or more, as the
exercising of dogs in the area has increased, the preponderance of
ground-nesting birds has decreased significantly because of the
disturbance caused by dog owners. The Kennel Club is arguing that
Natural England should be involved, because it believes that local
authorities are not doing a good job. It thinks that that would be a
means by which to appeal to Natural England’s better nature and
achieve a more acceptable dog-control order than that implemented by
local authorities. My argument is that there would be the additional
benefit of flora and fauna protection. I therefore hope that the
Minister will reflect on the need at least to allow the advice of
Natural England to be considered properly when the dog-control orders
are implemented.
Mr.
Benyon: There was great debate in another place about the
wording used under the Bill about the control of dogs; it came down to
the effective control of dogs. Like many people, I was concerned about
a farmer having to pay £10,000 to a dog walker who was injured
by a herd of cows. The actions of cattle are often centred not on
individuals, but on the dog walking beside them, so a rule restricting
the type of dog access, such as an order requiring dogs to be on a
lead, is not always the best answer. In an incident, someone’s
immediate action would be to let go of the dog and he find himself in
contravention of a byelaw.
I just hope
that such legislation will not drive a coach and horses through
established local byelaws. We can all think of areas of coastal Britain
where, after local consultation, town councils, parish councils or
large authorities designate an area a dog-free beach and
make other areas available for dog walking. The matter is all about
balance. Such issues should not be controlled from Whitehall. There
should be understanding. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act
2005 was designed principally with urban areas in mind. I am
sympathetic to the new schedule tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives,
but I want to make sure that legislative creep will not impose
adversely on local communities, make decisions made on their behalf and
impinge on the liability of landowners or the rights of dog
walkers. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): I welcome the debate. The key point made by the
hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury is about balance, which is
the principle that we need to bear in mind. As the hon. Member for St.
Ives rightly said, there is a small minority of irresponsible owners. A
number of them might not be aware of the dangers that sometimes occur
in coastal areas. An official from DEFRA recently visited Pembrokeshire
where, in the months since access has been extended, there has been a
number of cases of dogs falling off cliffs because they had seen
something attractive and had gone after it. In such cases, people end
up either with a dead dog or with a rescue situation that involves
considerable expense with the use of coastguards, the Royal National
Lifeboat Institution and so on. It is important that we bear in mind
safety as well as the welfare of livestock, which is a particular
worry. A
couple of weeks ago, I read an article about problems that have been
experienced in Iona, which is one of our great cultural assets.
Unfortunately, the increasing number of visitors and the increasing
number of dogs that are with them have caused several problems for the
croft owners in that small geographical area. Likewise, we need to
consider the protection of crops. Along the east coast in particular,
some valuable crops, such as asparagus, run almost right into the sea.
As they are not fenced off, it is important that appropriate
protections are put in place concerning people’s domestic pets.
I do not object to the sentiments raised by the hon. Member for St.
Ives but, as the hon. Member for Newbury pointed out, it is a question
of where the rules are best placed, and I would argue that it is not in
primary
legislation. 11.45
am There
was extensive discussion in the other place on the question of dogs and
the impact on land management and nature conservation. Lord Tyler
helpfully informed the other place that there are about 7.3 million
dogs in the UK, and 15 million dog owners. In the same debate, Lord
Hunt acknowledged the importance to land managers, people accompanied
by a dog, other users and responsible organisations such as the Kennel
Club and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of a common
understanding of the sort of behaviour that we should expect from a
person in charge of a
dog. Lord
Hunt noted the Government’s intention to consult on proposals to
amend the restrictions in schedule 2 of CROW for the purpose of coastal
access to require dogs to be kept under effective control. We propose
that the keeper of a dog should keep it on relevant access land, and
keep it on a lead or keep it in sight and remain aware of its actions.
A person should have reason to be confident that his or her dog will
return reliably and
promptly on command. We have also listened to the concerns that the
National Farmers Union expressed about the walking of dogs near
livestock. In view of that, we do not propose to make any change to the
current position on open country that a person should keep his dog on a
short lead in the vicinity of livestock and that they should comply
with any other relevant restrictions made under chapter II of the CROW
Act. The new
schedule tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives seeks to
make an amendment to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
As he pointed out, that Act provides for an appropriate authority to
make a dog control order for land in its area and to consult with
persons specified in regulations before doing so. He mentioned that the
Kennel Club had expressed concern about the lack of consultation. We
are aware of that, although it has not provided any specific examples.
To be fair, if people present specific examples, it gives more validity
to the allegations that are
made. There
are provisions in the regulations with respect to consultation about
orders that would affect CROW access land, and the new schedule would
require the appropriate authority to consult Natural England where a
proposed order would affect the English coastal route. We have made it
clear that we want local authorities to be involved, where appropriate
and where they are willing to do so, in proposals for the
implementation of coastal access. That was a point well made by the
hon. Member for Newbury. It is a decision most effectively made at
local level, where local knowledge is available and councils are
locally and democratically accountable to residents. That is what the
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 enables the local
authority to
do. The
regulations already provide for the sort of consultation that the hon.
Member for St. Ives is seeking in the new schedule. Where an order
would affect access land under CROW, the authority is required
specifically to consult the access authority for that land; the local
access forum; and, in respect of any land that is not situated in a
national park, Natural England. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, we
will consider whether the regulations should be amended to require
consultation with Natural England in all cases regarding coastal
margin, including land within national parks, but we do not need to
make such a provision in the
Bill.
Andrew
George: I just wanted to check that what I heard was
right. Did the Minister say that there is a requirement to consult
Natural England, but only in circumstances where it affects only
national parks? In the cases I cited earlier, there are areas outside
national parks where it is very clear that Natural England should be
consulted, because it has the expertise.
Ann
McKechin: At present, there is a requirement to consult
Natural England unless the land is part of a national park. We are
considering further regulations when the Bill receives Royal Assent to
include all land, including national parks, so we would extend the
measure. The
hon. Member for Newbury raised a question about established local
byelaws. I am pleased to confirm that the provisions in the Bill do not
affect local byelaws and we fully intend that that system should remain
in
place. Our aim for the coastal route is that it should be continuous as
far as reasonably practicable for dog walkers, and I am sympathetic to
the view that we should try to do everything possible within reason to
allow that to be facilitated. However, we also recognise that
restrictions are needed. The hon. Member for St. Ives said
that he was accompanied by his dog when he unveiled a mid-way marker
along the south-west coast path in Cornwall recently, and I am happy to
tell him that we will review the need for any changes to the
regulations once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
On that basis I urge him not to press his new
schedule. Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for her response.
Although I have much sympathy for the Kennel Club’s concerns in
this regard, I thought there was a sufficiently substantive issue for
us to have a debate and to clarify some of the points that have
emerged. As the Minister rightly pointed out, we need to strike a fair
balance between the desires of those who walk their dogs and other
users of coastal paths and beaches. I agree that the most appropriate
place to resolve those potential conflicts is at local level through
democratically elected local authorities. Local control orders are
clearly the best vehicle to achieve that.
However—and
I think the Minister took this on board—there is a requirement
to balance the interests of those who want to exercise their dogs off
the lead and the protection of coastal fauna. In some parts of coastal
areas, local authorities still do not seem to have quite got the
balance right. I mentioned ground-nesting birds, but there are other
seasons when the intrusion of dogs exercising off the lead can be
detrimental to fauna on the coast. We have to get the balance right.
Having heard the Minister’s response to the debate, I think the
balance is absolutely right: if in doubt, the decision should be taken
at a local level, but in consultation with the experts. I believe that
Natural England has a substantial body of expertise on which local
authorities can draw, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Schedule,
by leave, withdrawn.
| 
