Official Report 387KB pdf
Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Order 2016 [Draft]
Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2016 of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment, as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members will consult tablets during the meeting, as we provide meeting papers in digital format. We have received apologies from Jayne Baxter.
Our first agenda item is to take evidence on the draft Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Order 2016. I welcome Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and Douglas Forrester from the Scottish Government.
After we have taken evidence on the instrument, under agenda item 2, we will debate the motion in the name of the minister. The committee has up to 90 minutes to debate the motion, and officials are not permitted to contribute at that point.
I invite the minister to make any opening remarks that he may have.
Thank you, convener. The order under consideration increases the fixed penalty that is set out in section 9 of the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003. It will double the fixed penalty for dog fouling from £40 to £80, bringing it into line with the fixed penalty for littering. The change follows an analysis of the responses to our 2014 consultation on promoting responsible dog ownership. The consultation asked respondents to make suggestions on measures to tackle the persistent problem of dog fouling in our communities, and an overwhelming number of correspondents said that they wanted the fixed-penalty amount to be raised.
Following on from the consultation, my officials carried out a further limited consultation among relevant stakeholders, including all local authorities and Keep Scotland Beautiful, about doubling the fixed-penalty amount. All respondents to that consultation were in overwhelming agreement that the amount should be raised and that £80 was an appropriate level at which to set it.
That is all that I have to open with, convener, but I am happy to take questions.
Thank you, minister. John Wilson has a question.
Good morning, minister. In case any come out, I point out that no puns are intended.
I will stop you if they do.
The reality is that dog fouling is a serious issue; indeed, it is one of the most common complaints that local authorities receive. How many of the 32 local authorities that were consulted indicated that they had enforcement officers or dog wardens operating to carry out enforcement? What level of enforcement has taken place since the legislation came into force? There is no point in increasing fines if there is no one there to enforce the legislation.
I agree with Mr Wilson that there is little threat of prosecution or charge if there are no means to catch those who are guilty of such offences. We have been doing an exercise in which all local authorities have been invited to tell us one by one what approaches they take to enforcement. The approach to catching individuals varies hugely across the country. Some local authorities have dog wardens and some do not but use other officers, such as neighbourhood officers, who have other functions, to cover issues such as dog fouling.
My colleague, Douglas Forrester, has been involved in that exercise. With your permission, convener, I will ask him to comment on any evidence that we have received to date. I have not yet seen a comprehensive analysis of the feedback, but he may be able to contribute.
We have consulted local authorities. The Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 allows local authorities to use appointed officers to collect fixed penalties. As the minister said, those officers might not always be specialised dog wardens; sometimes, they are community wardens or neighbourhood officers, but they are authorised by the local authority under the provisions of the act to collect the fixed penalties.
I attend meetings of the antisocial behaviour officers forum, which involves local authority antisocial behaviour co-ordinators. At those meetings, all local authorities have said that they have authorised officers in place to deal with dog fouling. Through those meetings, I have heard of the desire to increase the dog fouling fixed penalty. Also, councillors from various local authorities, especially in Edinburgh and the Scottish Borders, have written to ask the minister specifically whether the Scottish Government will consider increasing the fixed penalty. We have taken the views of those people on board, and that is why we are here today to discuss the issue.
Could you remind me who receives the penalty fees when a fixed penalty is applied?
The fee is accruable to the local authority that issues the fixed penalty.
Will increasing the fine be seen as helping to alleviate some of the costs? The Government’s assessment of the proposed amendment says that it will be cost neutral and that there will be no additional cost to local authorities. If there is no additional cost, and if the additional fees then go to the local authorities, is that in the hope of getting more money into the system to allow more enforcement officers to carry out such duties?
That is the aim—it is to allow local authorities to collect more money to invest in tackling dog fouling.
The other thing to bear in mind is the importance of the signal. There has been inconsistency in the approach that has been taken to date. It is a slightly absurd position, in my view, that if someone were to pick up their dog mess, put it in a bag and leave that bag hanging, a littering fine is applicable, but that if they leave the dog mess on the ground and do nothing with it, they would have to pay a smaller penalty, although both are equally unacceptable. We are removing that inconsistency.
Increasing the fine sends the important signal that dog fouling is an issue that society and local government take seriously. It will make things easier, because there are significant costs involved in recovering unpaid charges, so increasing the fine improves the return for pursuing unpaid penalties and makes it more affordable to do so from the local authorities’ point of view, so they can be sure of covering their costs in recovering the charges. That area is not addressed in the measure that we are now proposing, and it would require primary legislation to do anything to improve that process and ensure that unpaid fines are paid, but it could be looked at after dissolution by the current Scottish Government or another Administration.
I welcome the minister’s comments regarding the pursuance of unpaid fines, because there is no point in bringing in legislation on fines if people do not pay them. I also welcome the acknowledgement of the issue of dog fouling in the countryside, which has been raised with me by the National Farmers Union of Scotland. There is one infamous tree that is littered with plastic bags containing the remains of dog fouling in the countryside. I hope that we can use the measure to move forward and get more enforcement, and to make people understand that they have responsibilities and duties, not only as dog owners but to others in the countryside.
I whole-heartedly agree. I know that NFU Scotland and Keep Scotland Beautiful have been working closely together to try to tackle dog fouling in agricultural areas. The legislation as it stands does not cover dog fouling on agricultural land, for practical reasons to do with shepherds and working dogs that are used in the countryside and are not covered by the legislation. However, we are conscious that NFUS, Keep Scotland Beautiful and other campaigners are keen for the issue to be tackled, because it can have an impact on wildlife as well, as Mr Wilson and other members will know.
I was formerly responsible for looking after the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park on behalf of the Government, and I know that there were significant issues about how dog fouling had impacted on wildlife in the Loch Lomond area, particularly capercaillie—the impact on nesting areas can be devastating. There are a number of reasons why the issue needs to be tackled, not least of which is the public health concerns for children who are vulnerable to diseases that can be caused by contact with dog mess. I hope that the proposed measure will be a small but important step in improving the level of response to what is widely perceived as a significant problem.
I see that, if the order is passed, it will come into force on 1 April, which is only about 10 weeks away. How will you make sure that the public are aware that the change is coming? Are local councils getting geared up for it with awareness-raising campaigns? Is there any evidence that councils are beginning to provide more dog-fouling bins, which the public always seem to be asking for more of?
We certainly recognise that the provision of dog-fouling bins is very important. It is obviously a matter for local authorities to decide how best to deploy those resources. We are confident. Local authorities have been in touch with officials to advise that they are in the process of organising the new fixed-penalty books that we required. They are aware that this is happening and, as has been indicated, they are supportive of what we are doing.
If the measure is passed, the Government will use all media channels to try to communicate the message. We will consider whether we can remind people nearer the date when the measure will come into force—1 April—that the legislation has changed and that they are liable for a larger fine. I agree that behavioural change cannot happen unless people are aware that the measure has been taken and that the fine will be higher than it was previously. We need to educate individuals about the fact that there is a larger risk for them if they continue to ignore the warnings.
We are confident that local authorities are aware of the measure and are supportive of it and that they will do what is necessary to make sure that it is successfully implemented.
Some local authorities have already been in touch with me to ask whether the fixed penalty will be coming into force on 1 April, because they are in the process of organising new fixed-penalty books. I can therefore confirm that some local authorities are already making arrangements in anticipation of the order going through.
Thank you.
I have noticed that there is some publicity on the go on the issue in the papers in my neck of the woods. A city warden in Aberdeen was interviewed the other day and reported that a member of the public removed their sock to dispose of the offending article rather than pay the fine.
Good morning, minister. In France, they have bags for dog fouling in public parks, which people pay for. Is that a good idea? Should there be notices in public parks to say that the fine has been increased? Enforcement is very difficult. If you see someone letting their dog foul and you tell them not to, they will basically tell you to go and see a taxidermist—there is nothing you can do about it. How will enforcement work? Can we put notices in public parks to say that the fine is now £60?
It is £80. I should pick up an earlier point and make it clear that if the fine is not paid on time it goes up to £100—it reaches 50 per cent of the maximum that it could be, which is £200. It goes from the current 20 per cent up to 40 per cent, but rises to 50 per cent if it is not paid on time.
I agree that publicity is important and I would certainly be supportive of any measures that local authorities take to advertise the change. We will do what we can through media and other outlets, but the delivery of signage is a matter for local authorities. I hope that, if there is increased revenue from dog-fouling penalties, that will to an extent help pay for any additional publicity, although I appreciate that that is a simplistic analysis of how the financial mechanics might work—they might not work that way in practice.
Cameron Buchanan is right to hit on the example of public parks, where I hope that children would have a reasonable expectation of playing in safety without finding themselves covered in dog mess and so putting their health at risk. That is important. It is probably not practical to have signage in every place where the public and dogs mix, but certainly public parks, play areas and football pitches are areas where we should make it very clear that it is unacceptable to leave dog mess.
Would you suggest that notices should be put up? That is really what I was trying to ask about enforcement.
10:15
As I said earlier, we are trying to gauge the approaches that are taken across the country. If we gather evidence that signage works and that it adds value in local authorities, and we take local authorities’ views on whether it has been effective, we will communicate that to other local authorities and tell them that it has an impact.
We have to listen to local authorities about what works at a local level. Douglas Forrester referred to some innovative practices in local authorities. I know that the City of Edinburgh Council is among the most proactive of the local authorities that I am aware of in tackling dog fouling. It has done quite a lot of work to map where dog fouling takes place so that it can target resources at where the offences are being committed. That could identify where signage would be most appropriate rather than having it somewhere where there have been few, if any, offences and not getting a good return for the investment. The right way to go is probably to target signage resource at areas where there is a known problem.
My understanding is that, when the original legislation was passed, the charge levied by the fixed-penalty notice was going to be based on a percentage of a level 1 fine. Am I correct?
That is correct. The level 1 fine goes up to £200 and the current charge is 20 per cent of that, but we are increasing it to 40 per cent. With the late penalty, which will stay the same at £20, the fine will go up to 50 per cent if somebody does not pay on time.
Are you doing it that way because level 1 fines have not increased since the legislation was enacted? Is that right?
I cannot answer that. Perhaps Douglas Forrester knows whether the figure has changed since 2003.
I checked before putting the order through and, according to the Scottish Government website, the level 1 fine is still set at £200. That is correct.
So we are increasing the percentage.
Yes. We are increasing it to 40 per cent as standard, but 50 per cent if payment is late.
It seems to be a long time since the level 1 fine has gone up, but that is probably a matter for another committee.
As there are no more questions, I move to the next agenda item, which is the formal debate. I invite the minister to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government and Regeneration Committee recommends that the Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Order 2016 [draft] be approved.—[Paul Wheelhouse.]
Motion agreed to.
Thank you for your attendance, minister.
10:17 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance