§ 3.3 p.m.
§ Baroness SHARPLESMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge upon local authorities in urban areas the desirability of taking steps to prevent the fouling of streets, pavements and open spaces by dogs.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, the working party on dogs recommended that local authorities should continue to use their powers to make by-laws to prevent fouling and to ban dogs from places such as children's play areas, but it is for authorities themselves to decide what resources they can devote to making and enforcing such by-laws.
§ Baroness SHARPLESMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree with me, however, that, as dog owners, we have a responsibility to keep our open spaces clean? Would we not be advised to follow the example set in New York and other States? In 1654 the State of California, owners are compelled to remove their pets' indiscretions. "Pooper-scoopers" are provided for this purpose, and there are waste bins in which the remains can be put. Would not this be a good piece of advice that we could give to local councils?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, a clearing up law would pose considerable difficulties and problems of public acceptance and enforceability. We think that possibly it would be better to try to concentrate on preventing the fouling of places where the nuisance is being caused. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last week in another place, it is a pity that dog owners do not take more trouble to see that their dogs do not foul, and we ought to try to help to educate public opinion in this matter.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, as the notices about possible heavy fines which are displayed in many of the streets of London seem to have absolutely no deterrent effect, may I ask the noble Lord whether a single prosecution has ever taken place?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, the answer, I am sure, is that there must have been some, but I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse. However, I can tell your Lordships that it is open to any member of the public to institute prosecutions when they see such an offence taking place.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether or not a verse would do, even if there is no chapter?
§ Lord PARRYMy Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept that my Welsh border collie instructed me this morning that he is more interested in the tree replanting Bill which is to follow than in the Question which has just been asked?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, it has already been pointed out to me that this question has a sexual connotation, but I do not want to go into that side of it.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to explain how it is that we can solve the problem of Rhodesia and that we can deal most effectively with terrorists and yet we allow these dogs to act in defiance of the law? Do the Government really regard themselves, in those circumstances, as efficient?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, we always know that the hardest people to control are our loved ones, and the dog is man's best friend.
§ Lord DERWENTMy Lords, the Question refers to the taking of steps. However, is not the real trouble that the taking of steps occurs after the footway has been fouled and that that is what is so annoying?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONYes, my Lords, it is horribly annoying. I could not agree more. Enforcement is very hard. Local authorities can do more and the general public can do more.
§ Lord SOAMESMy Lords, may I suggest that we have had enough of this Question?