Official Report 274KB pdf
Okay, comrades. We move to stage 1 consideration of the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Bill, which is a members' bill that has been introduced by a member of the committee, Keith Harding. Today, we will take evidence from three organisations, the first of which is the Royal Environmental Health Institute for Scotland. I welcome John Sleith, who is the chairman of the professional development and education committee of the institute.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear today to give the view of the Royal Environmental Health Institute for Scotland. Approximately 70 per cent of our members are environmental health officers, the majority of whom are employed in local authorities. Our members welcome the bill, which should go a long way towards reducing the scourge of dog fouling in our communities. In particular, our members welcome the fact that the bill will for the first time permit local authorities to take steps themselves to tackle the problem.
Thank you. As an ex-councillor, I suspect that I know what your answer to this question will be. In your experience, how big a concern for local communities is the problem of dog fouling?
It forms a large proportion of the overall number of public health complaints that we get. I have no specific statistics on it. The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland gathers information from local authorities on such matters, but until now there has been no separate grading of complaints about dog fouling. However, we are taking steps to change that, and the annual report that we are compiling will show figures for dog fouling.
In a sense, you have answered my second question. Before the Parliament could change current legislation, it would have to examine how that legislation is working. What challenges do local authorities and the police face under the current legislation? Where are they stuck?
The problem is largely one of corroboration. Local authority officers who try to apprehend offenders or take evidence on offences under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 often need corroboration, so at least two persons need to be present to take the evidence. Under the existing legislation, the police have to enforce that. Some authorities have protocols with the police under which they have joint patrols in which a police officer is present. That seems to be successful in the limited areas in which it has taken place. The difficulties that face local government and our members are that we simply cannot have joint patrols unless police resources are available for specific projects in particular areas.
What strategies can local authorities employ to deal with dog fouling? Do you have any examples of what you consider to be best practice?
I am aware of a number of authorities that have a dog warden in place. I believe that there is a statutory duty on local authorities to appoint a dog warden to round up strays. Those dog wardens often double as educational officers and visit schools and community clubs, for example. In some cases, they even take on an educational role in the community and visit parks where dog walkers regularly exercise their animals and approach people gently and persuasively to put them right on what they do.
In your written evidence, you refer to a view that section 4 should be amended to include a requirement for local authorities to engage staff in an educational role. Given that you have already indicated that best practice suggests that that educational role is part of what they do, is a legislative requirement for that necessary? Should local authorities not be left to undertake that as part of their best-value and best-practice guidance?
We come from the viewpoint that community education is important. I am not aware of staff having an educational role in many local authorities. We felt that, if a specific duty was placed on local authorities to appoint someone to enforce the law, the same person or persons could be asked to take on an educational role in parallel. That is why we felt that it was useful to couple those roles in the bill.
As a former Renfrewshire Council councillor, I know that when I was in office that council led the way in trying to educate people. It also installed dog bins and gave out free poop scoops. I want to ask about the cost implications of giving things away free. We received evidence at committee and elsewhere that the bill should include provision for the introduction of a system of registration and licensing. It was said that that would help to identify owners and provide for the costs involved in educating people and employing dog wardens. Is that a good idea? If so, should it be introduced in the bill or by individual councils?
I am not sure that I caught the question.
Although the costs involved are not great—the sum of £6,632 has been mentioned for all 32 local authorities—councils need to recover their costs. People have suggested that a system of registration and licensing should be introduced to identify owners and offset the costs of employing wardens, educational officers and so forth. Is it a good idea for such a system to be introduced for local authorities?
I am not sure that such a system would be cost-effective in the long run, as the costs of servicing and implementing a licensing or registration scheme might be prohibitive. Provision is made in the bill for income from fixed penalties to go to local authorities and it may be that the number that are served will produce a method of providing income that will offset the costs involved.
Are you saying that a registration scheme could be more cumbersome than fixed penalties? If the bill comes to fruition, which I am sure it will, as everyone supports it, should extra money be forthcoming from the Executive to implement it or should local authorities have to find the money from other pots of funding?
The imposition of a registration and licensing scheme would not raise the funds that would be required. If the problem is to be tackled in the way that it should be, I imagine that the number of fixed penalties would raise quite a substantial income to offset the costs involved. That would certainly be the case in the first instance.
So you do not think that the Executive should give extra moneys to local authorities to ensure that the bill—or a registration and licensing scheme—is operational.
I am sure that such moneys would always be welcome.
What increase in staff might be needed at local authority level? We have talked about enforcement and education, which you see as the ways forward. What differences will be required in staffing levels to make the bill effective? What will be the financial implications of taking on those staffing levels?
I do not envisage local authorities needing to take on additional staff. They may be able to appoint existing members of staff, including environmental health officers, dog wardens or even parking wardens—who are on the streets as it is. Those types of officers could have some of their time allocated to the duties of issuing and enforcing fixed penalties for dog fouling.
Did you say that it might be possible for a parking warden to be multipurpose? Did you say that they could also look out for dog fouling and issue penalties for that offence?
As far as I can see, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent that from happening.
At the outset, I thank you for your general support for my bill. The suggestion that you made in an answer to Sandra White is outwith the scope of the bill, which is intended to address only dog fouling. I understand that the Executive is considering a dog identification bill. The Presiding Officer has approved the financial aspects of the bill, which I understand are not being questioned by the Scottish Executive.
Thank you. That is very interesting.
I would like to change the subject slightly. Dog fouling is not only the mess out there; it is a health hazard. Could you provide details of the health problems that are caused by dog fouling? How many complaints do you receive about it? How do you deal with the problem?
It is recognised that dog faeces carry a number of diseases, some of which are outlined in the papers that accompany the bill. The most common organisms include E coli, salmonella and campylobacter. It is interesting to note that Scotland has a higher incidence of infections of those types than is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in other countries. I am not sure whether a direct correlation can be drawn with the dog fouling problem, but it may be that the bill will make a positive impact on those figures.
I want to ask about one aspect of the wording that is used in the bill. Public space is defined in the bill as
I do not agree that the definition is too wide. From my reading of it, I feel that that definition is fairly clear and acceptable. A public open space is generally any place to which the public has right of access. I am fairly comfortable with the definition as it is. I do not envisage that our members would have a problem in interpreting it.
We have no more questions. I was interested in what you said about the health issues and the health differences that exist between Scotland and other places. That is an area that we will perhaps examine later in our evidence taking. Although the percentage is small, it is important. I thank you for coming before the committee. I am sorry that you had to wait for some time before you were called.
I have a question. The bill does not contain guidance on a lower age limit for the issuing of fixed penalties. It occurs to me that a situation could arise in which an enforcement officer comes across—say—a nine-year-old girl walking a dog. If the dog defecates, our officer is put into the difficult position of knowing whether to take action. That situation may be left to the individual discretion of the officer or for the local authority to issue guidelines. Is it intended to have guidance on that matter accompanying the bill?
Before I bring in Keith Harding, I want to say that I would vote against any suggestion that such an offence would go before the children's panel. I think that we are talking about the parents.
I will give evidence to the committee next week on the subject. In the meantime, I will write to the witness and tell him how we are trying to overcome the difficulty that he has pointed out. It is being addressed.
It is an issue that has been brought up by others in written evidence.
I do not wish to add very much to our written submission and I assume that anything that I will have to add will be teased out by your questions.
How much of a concern is dog fouling to local communities? How often do you get complaints? How serious is the problem?
We get virtually no complaints about dog fouling. I cannot recollect ever having written a letter about it, and if one person a year gets on the phone about it, that is a lot. If complaints are made, they generally go to local authorities, because people think that local authorities can do something about it.
If we are going to change legislation in the Parliament, we have to consider what is currently in force. What are the challenges that face local authorities and the police under the current legislation? I now know that you do not receive complaints, but you are obviously aware that people are concerned about dog fouling. What are the difficulties for the police and local authorities under the current legislation that could be addressed through the Parliament making some kind of change?
The main difficulty is the general impossibility of applying the current legislation. We know that it is virtually impossible to catch someone in the act, as it were. If we are trying to educate people, there is no point in telling them, "Look, if you let your dog do this, we'll catch you." That is plainly silly. The current legislation does not address the real problem, which is people not picking up afterwards. We cannot legislate for dogs deciding to do it at a particular time, although most of us can regulate it with reasonable timing. This is where the bill has a lot of merit: it addresses the problem in a sensible fashion.
Could you outline in detail the difficulties to do with the enforcement provisions under the bill? Are there any ways in which we could get over those issues?
I see the practicalities as follows. Two confirmed dog haters live quite close to me. Let us not underestimate this—there are a lot of people like that around. They constantly accused me of letting my dog foul the pavement when I was clearly not doing so, because I was the only owner of a small dog in the area. Those people were going to report me, but as far as I know they did not. However, the point is that it would not be right for the bill to make it easier for them to do so and for me to be wrongly penalised. It would be wrong to let the bill go forward on that basis.
How could we improve the bill to get over that problem?
That is difficult because unless there are two witnesses, one is a bit hamstrung. I assumed that the bill would provide that the person who issued the fine would be the person who witnessed the incident, but it is not clear to me that that is the case. The bill would seem to allow a notice to be issued without requiring any real evidence. For example, my local dog hater could just phone up and say that they wanted a notice to be issued to me because I had allowed dog fouling to be left on the pavement. If I can be reassured that the practicalities of the bill would ensure that such a situation could not happen, I will be happy.
I have a question for Allan Sim about the paragraph in his written evidence on "Authorised Persons". The paragraph states that the most suitable personnel might be
Again, the bill does not make it clear who an authorised person should be. We have no problem with people being specifically appointed and trained to carry out the enforcement tasks. However, the bill seems to suggest that just about any local government employee, including street cleaners, could be authorised to issue tickets. Frankly, the mind boggles and it would boggle even further if traffic wardens, particularly in Edinburgh, were to be appointed. God help us all.
I could not agree with you more. I have a further brief question on the issue of education. I am a dog owner and I find that the best way to deal with dog fouling is to embarrass owners by telling them that they have not picked up after their dog. Do you think that the bill, or the guidance, should provide for a relevant education programme, which perhaps could be run by local authorities or schools?
I do not think that local authorities should embark on such education. Local authorities should support those, such as the Scottish Kennel Club, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Canine Concern Scotland Trust, who provide education. There is a wide body of knowledge and experience on education matters. The problem is that local authorities do not always recognise and support that. If they did so, it would probably cost them little or nothing. Education is definitely the way forward, but I do not think that local authorities should have to spend vast wads of money on education. Skilled people already provide education that promotes responsible dog ownership.
Are you suggesting that, if the bill had provision for an education programme, local authorities could ask organisations such as the Scottish Kennel Club and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to run educational programmes in schools?
Absolutely. That already happens. We have excellent relations with, for example, dog wardens, who have been trained in the education of dog owners. That education has undoubtedly worked in relation to the number of stray dogs. Closer partnerships between local authorities and those responsible for educating dog owners would bear great fruit.
I want to return to the question whether the local authority official who would issue the spot fine—as I sometimes call it—must witness the event. Your oral evidence seems to accept that a major problem with the existing legislation is that the people who enforce it—the police—are not necessarily there when the offence is committed and do not see the dog fouling. Is there a danger that a similar problem would arise from the new legislation, which would place a requirement on the local authority officer to witness the event?
I do not think so. Presumably, those who would be appointed would already have an active role outdoors, in parks and in the streets. Certainly, when I walk dogs in Edinburgh, I see vans going around from time to time containing people who are called environmental wardens. They already go around the area, not only to look out for us but to care for the parks. I think that the environmental wardens already have a general watching brief, so there is no reason why they could not deal with the problem. That will not change the situation of the person who walks their dog down the street at 10 o'clock at night. Keeping watch for that is just not a practicality. As Sandra White said, tackling that situation is all about peer pressure, but the very existence of the legislation would help.
Given those circumstances, if a member of the public is aware of someone, such as a neighbour, who allows their dog to foul persistently without clearing up after it—which would become an offence under the bill—and makes a complaint to the local authority, the only way that the local authority could deal with that would be to stake out the person until they see the offence being committed. Is that not a bit extreme? One would have thought that the bill's purpose was to allow the authority to take action on such complaints from the public.
This may sound extreme, but if someone is a persistent offender, they deserve to be spied upon.
I agree that the article in today's press contained no argument.
There is no doubt about that. As long as the people who are appointed are recognised as being capable of doing the job, their title does not matter. I am tempted to say that they will acquire a title anyway, as I suspect that they will become known as the "faece police", but the title does not matter.
Is the concern about street cleaners and others being authorised less to do with the bill and more to do with the way in which the local authorities may operate under the new legislation? Surely the solution is for local authorities to act sensibly rather than to amend the bill.
I am not sure about that one.
If I may return to Iain Smith's point, I can understand your concern about what might, for want of a better word, be called whistle-blowing, but surely there is a parallel with all other offences. The police rarely witness a murder, but they must still prosecute the crime by proving that the offence took place. The same would apply to dog fouling.
Our worry was about how people would move from being a suspect to being an offender. I am sure that enough evidence could be built up on someone who was a persistent offender, but there could be a problem regarding the average person who might offend only once or twice.
Sorry, I have one further question. Your submission mentions that dogs are involved in a range of recognised working activities. Will you expand on what you want to be incorporated into the bill?
Funnily enough, when I wrote that, I had plenty of examples in my head, but I am not sure that I can come up with any off the cuff. I suppose that I am saying that the legislation should not be so restrictive, so that it will not need amending too often. The phrase that is used in the bill should be a bit more general and should not be so specific about the type of working activity to which it refers. Dogs might perform working activities that are not included in the exceptions that are listed in the bill, and it would be wrong for those activities not to be exempt.
The more that we include in the bill, the more challenges there will be in the courts. We must be fairly specific. As I said in my original comments, it should be up to local authorities to train their staff to be responsible and sympathetic. I do not seek massive fines. I am trying to educate irresponsible dog owners, not to punish the responsible ones.
I admit—perhaps mischievously—that what comes to mind is somebody going out at night with a camera to take pictures.
I cannot produce any statistics on that, nor can I produce any statistics to argue against the view that dog fouling is a major problem, although I am not sure that it is. I think that it is a problem, but I do not think that it is as big a problem as some people imagine. In everything that we do, we emphasise responsible dog ownership. We discuss from A to Z what is involved in the responsible ownership of a dog. We work closely with other organisations such as the Canine Concern Scotland Trust, which goes into schools and has a good educational programme for children. Rather than setting up our own system, we support that one. That is how we try to reach kids. At the end of the day, they are the people who will learn. If they do not learn, it will not be for the want of trying.
Are there any measures that are not in the bill but that you want to be there?
Not directly, although I have a thing about receptacles for dog fouling and litter. It is a grave error to do away with litter bins. There are few such receptacles around the countryside. I believe firmly that if bins were available, that would be a major encouragement to people to pick up. Some people are quite happy to pick up, but they do not like putting it in their pocket or bag and having to take it home. That is worse than picking it up. I make no apology for mentioning that again. I think that in local authority areas where receptacles are provided, the problem is smaller.
There are no more questions.
Thank you for your time.
I welcome Jim Hunter, who is a divisional officer of environmental wardens with the City of Edinburgh Council, and thank him for coming. He can speak to us for a few minutes, after which we will ask questions.
Members have a copy of the City of Edinburgh Council submission, which was approved by the council's executive before it was sent to the committee. The submission states that we broadly welcome the principles of the bill and that we support its aims. In particular, we welcome the bill's proposal for a fixed-penalty system for dealing with dog fouling, along with the continuing use of the court system.
How has the City of Edinburgh Council utilised the existing legislation to tackle the problem of dog fouling?
The council has taken a proactive approach to dealing with dog fouling. We accept the fact that the existing legislation, which is set out in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, lists dog-fouling offences under the powers of constables. That implies that the issue is for the police to deal with. However, some time ago we discussed the matter with the procurator fiscal, who said that he was quite happy to accept reports from us as a non-police reporting agency. The first 24 offenders who were detected by our officers not picking up after their dogs in a place where it is an offence to foul were reported to the procurator fiscal. I understand that all those cases were dealt with by the use of conditional offers—sometimes known as fiscal fines.
You raised concerns about the issue of public space, and I think that you were in the room when I read out the list of places that is contained in the bill. The obvious question is, where can the dog go if all those areas are excluded? What are your reservations about that issue?
I take your point, although I do not think that I was in the room when you read out the list. There are two issues. First, there is the difficulty with the existing legislation in so far as it defines areas where it is an offence to allow a dog to foul. There is some confusion among dog owners and, more important, the public. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to explain to a complainer that, because the dog fouling is on the roadway, it is not an offence. They say to me, "If it was 6in the other way, on the pavement, you would deal with it, wouldn't you?" and I have to admit that we would. It is not an offence for the dog owner to allow the dog to foul on the roadway. The dog owner can walk away and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it.
What guidance would you give the public about how they could keep their dog on the right side of the bill? I am a bit confused about communal areas, which are not one person's private property. A lot of people live in those conditions. What guidance would people need about how to keep their dog within the law?
Are you talking about public open space or communally owned land such as that which is owned by several landowners?
I am talking about both aspects. What difficulties do you see with the bill as drafted? If the bill were enacted, what advice would you give to dog owners who wanted to keep on the right side of the law? Obviously, dog owners will not take the bill out with them when they take the dog for a walk. I want you to say in simple terms what you think is wrong with the bill. For example, what is wrong with its definition of "public open space"? Are there other problems concerning where the dog is allowed or is not allowed to foul?
There is nothing wrong with the bill's proposal to make it an offence in any public open space not to pick up the dog's fouling. Our advice to dog owners has always been, and will continue to be, that they should be prepared to pick up any fouling that their dog leaves behind. If they take the dog out for exercise, or indeed leave their property with the dog, they should be prepared to pick up any mess that the dog leaves behind. They should have in their pocket something that allows them to pick up the fouling and remove it. That could be an old plastic carrier bag or whatever.
Or indeed a copy of the bill.
It is as simple as that.
Has the council had any enforcement problems with its interesting technique of using provisions within the litter legislation to issue fixed-penalty notices? One problem with the bill is that, although it would give local authority officers the power to issue fixed-penalty notices, it appears not to give them the power to obtain the alleged offender's personal details. Is that a problem with the fixed-penalty notices that are issued under the existing litter legislation? Ought the bill to address that issue?
Our experience to date is that not having the power to demand a person's details does not present a huge difficulty. It would be nice to have that facility, or at least to have a charge of obstruction for those who refused to give their details. Under current legislation, our only means of dealing with that situation is to ask for the assistance of the police. The police in the City of Edinburgh Council area have been extremely helpful in that respect. In fact, the police now ask us to help them deal with dog-fouling offences.
On a related issue, one of the previous witnesses raised the issue of juveniles and young children who take their family dog for a walk and an offence is committed. Have you any thoughts on whether there should be an age limit in the legislation, and on how to deal with situations in which fouling takes place and a young person who is below the age limit is in control of the dog?
The practicalities of the situation are such that it would be difficult to pursue someone who was aged under 16. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 states specifically that someone under the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted, except on the express instructions of the Lord Advocate. That is why we do not issue fixed-penalty notices for littering to people under the age of 16. We realise that practical difficulties are involved in doing that. We take the view that a warning letter to the parent or guardian of the child is usually the best way to approach the matter in those circumstances.
You talked about children under 16 being exempt. As the bill stands, various groups are exempt from the provisions, for example the blind and the disabled. The committee has received representations on the fact that the definitions of blind and disabled in the bill are too rigid, and seeking the inclusion of partially sighted and old and infirm people, who may have difficulty clearing up after their dogs, in the exemptions. Do you have any concerns about the exemptions? Should they be widened?
I take the point. When one attempts to define who should be exempt, the risk is that the list of people becomes very long. Keeping the exemptions fairly narrow gives some latitude to the enforcement officers who deal with the situation on the ground. Even as the law currently stands, our officers have some discretion about whether to pursue a person. If somebody is clearly having some difficulty in controlling a dog because of age, infirmity or, in some cases, mental illness, the officer has discretion. If they decide that they want to issue a fixed penalty or that the person should be reported to the fiscal, they have to set out the reasons for that and justify their action. Knowing the fiscal system as I do, unless there are sound reasons for a prosecution, a fiscal will not take the case.
Thank you for your submission and your general support for the bill.
We would not try to implement the bill on private property. That would involve difficulties. Unless the bill has changed since I received a copy, it implies that if co-owners consent to dog fouling on co-owned land, that is all right. Our concern is that co-owners could be intimidated to say that they had consented. Pursuing somebody in such circumstances would be difficult.
We are talking about private property. How would designated officers know what had taken place?
I presume that the occurrence would have to be reported to the officers.
If it were reported to them, it could be assumed that one owner had not consented.
That assumption is reasonable. However, by implication, when the offender is tackled about the matter, they will know that the other owners will have to say that they do not consent. That is when intimidation could arise.
Surely intimidation is a criminal offence. Arguably, it is more serious, so the police would be involved and the matter would not be dealt with under the bill.
I cannot argue against that. We merely raise our practical concerns.
I appreciate that. I just wanted to discuss the matter.
If a designated officer's sole responsibility were to deal with dog fouling, it would be reasonable to expect them to carry a fixed-penalty notice book at all times. However, if an authorised officer has a range of duties, that expectation would be unreasonable. In such circumstances, I presume that the notice would be written later, back at the office or somewhere else, then sent to the offender. Some combinations of weekends, shift patterns and public holidays might make it difficult for an officer to do that within the 72-hour limit that the bill proposes. We suggest that a slightly longer period should be acceptable and would not infringe on the administration of justice.
How long does the council take to issue fixed-penalty notices?
That is normally done on the same day as the offence occurs, but I cannot guarantee that. Sometimes, it might take two, three or four days to establish the offender's full address and identity, which must be done before the notice is issued. That is why our submission suggests that seven days would be an appropriate period.
Is your recommendation based on your experiences?
Yes.
The committee received evidence that suggests that the bill should introduce a registration and licensing system, which would allow authorities to identify more quickly the owner of a dog that was fouling. That would also help to raise funds to improve dog warden services and public education programmes, if we were interested in such services. Do you agree that such a scheme would do that?
It would be nice to have additional funding, especially if it were ring fenced for those purposes, but I am not sure whether that would happen.
I probably agree with that. Members have no more questions, so I thank Jim Hunter for attending and answering the committee's questions. If we have to get in touch with you again, we will do so.
Meeting continued in private until 16:58.