New Clause 16 - Summary offence of urination or defecation in a public place
Criminal Justice and Police Bill
9:45 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sadly, we have so little time because of the Government's ridiculous guillotine that we shall be unable to finish the debate. However, I can briefly move what we regard as an important matter. It is not only Opposition Members who regard new clause 16 as important. The original impetus behind the clause came from Westminster city council. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who has played a significant role in the Committee. I pay tribute to him because he has gone well beyond the traditional role of the usual channels and not only supported his constituents on matters such as a field sports, but been involved in talking to councillor Kit Malthouse, who is Westminster city council's lead member.
I have a letter from Mr. Graham Ellis, who is Westminster city council's director of policy and communications. The council, which, along with many other urban, suburban and perhaps even rural local authorities, feels strongly on this issue, states:
``We feel the police should be able to serve fixed penalty notices for urination and defecation in the street. This is not currently an offence unless a byelaw is in place. However enforcing byelaws involves the arrest and the lengthy processing of any offenders.''
The council points out that it has introduced several measures that will come into force this summer to seek to tackle the problem. They include longer opening hours for public conveniences and the use of mobile urinals. However, the problem is now widespread—according to Mr. Ellis and his colleague Mr. Grant—in the city of Westminster, which is the local authority for the centre of this capital city of which we are rightly proud.
The letter states that
``the problem is so widespread that these measures that the council itself is taking alone are unlikely to make significant inroads without the power to back them up with a pro-active enforcement campaign.''
It continues:
``We have the support from the police for a change in the law. Like us, the police believe that an on-the-spot penalty is the most effective way of dealing with offenders. It seems anomalous that the illegal depositing of litter should be an offence attracting a fixed penalty when the even more antisocial act of human beings fouling the highway is not. Still stranger is the position of the dog owner who is legally responsible for his pet's toilet habits, but not for his own.''
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that having got through 55 amendments or new clauses today, it is ridiculous that we were scheduled to deal with a further 24 clauses, two schedules, 44 amendments and one new clause in such a short time?