Earlier this month, Canterbury
City Council announced new measures in
their attempt to kerb the problem of dog fouling. The introduction of a
district-wide Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), coming into effect from
early October, not only promises £80 fixed penalty notices for dog walkers who
fail to pick up after their dog, but also for owners who fail to “demonstrate
they have the appropriate means to clean up.” The definition of ‘appropriate
means’ turns out to be remarkably specific:
“As a rule of
thumb, our enforcement officers would expect responsible dog owners to carry at least two bags that can be used to
dispose of dog excrement.” (Leo Whitlock, Canterbury City Council spokesperson)
It was this surprising new
requirement that led to the PSPO being reported widely in the national news,
sparking debate across media platforms on how effective the regulations would
be.
Canterbury City Council aren’t
the first council to make dog owners liable to fines for not having the means
to clean up their dog’s mess. Since the introduction of the Anti-social
Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, under which PSPOs have replaced the
previous system of Dog Control Orders, several councils including Daventry,
Boston, Knowsley, and Rhondda Cynon Taf have introduced PSPOs with the same obligation
to carry bags for dog waste.
However, Canterbury appears to be
the first council to make carrying two bags the common standard upon which the
‘means to clean up’ is based. It’s a bizarre situation that reveals something
more significant about the powers of the state to intervene in our everyday
lives.
What do dog owners think?
As those most familiar with their
dogs’ toilet habits, dog owners were particularly well-placed to point out the
absurdities of the new rules. Living in Canterbury myself, I approached them in
person and online to hear their thoughts.
Their most common concern was
being approached by an officer at the end of a walk, when they may have fewer
than two bags left. How would officers know that a dog walker had originally
carried more, if some of the bags had already been used and thrown away? There
were similar worries from those who use different methods of cleaning up after
their pet, such as scooping the mess into a single black bin liner, which do
not adhere to the ‘two bags’ rule.
“What happens if you've used up all your bags
clearing up after your dog and everyone else's dogs, will you get a fine then
as well? How can you prove that you had more than 2 bags? You can't as you've
just used them all up and you're on your way home!” (Dog owner)
Other owners believe that the
regulations could actually worsen problems with dog fouling. It’s been
suggested that setting such a precise number of bags to carry might encourage
dog walkers to leave poo on paths if they’re running out of bags, for fear of
being caught out later by officers. Furthermore, ensuring that bags are carried
by dog owners won’t do anything to stop the well-reported problem of people dropping poo bags as litter, rather
than using bins.
It’s easy to see how the
arbitrary requirement to carry two bags could make criminals out of those who
had no intention of leaving their dog’s mess, while serial offenders go
unpunished.
In response to these issues, some
dog owners have pointed towards practical, proven methods of tackling the issue
instead of costly enforcement practices, suggesting that the Council itself
could be more proactive in ensuring the appropriate facilities are available
for dog walkers. On social media, many highlighted the lack of bins for
disposing of dog waste in popular recreation areas, arguing that more should be
available. It was also pointed out that other councils and voluntary
organisations in the UK provide bag dispensers on common walking routes. This tactic reminds owners of their
obligations and encourages them to fulfil them, while also providing the means
to do so for those who have may have run out of bags, or simply forgotten to
pack any.
Instead of taking positive steps
to solve the problem, Canterbury City Council (CCC) have opted for an approach
to dog fouling that risks not only being ineffective, but also criminalising
dog owners who have done nothing wrong.
How have the council responded?
Due to the volume of reaction to
the news in mainstream and social media, the council felt the need to make an
‘Important Information’ post on their
Facebook page.
The council were especially keen
to emphasise that they will be taking a ‘common sense’ approach to enforcement –
another way of saying that your chances of getting a fixed penalty notice are
at the discretion of the individual officer(s) involved. They confirmed that enforcement
officers are not legally entitled to stop and search to confirm people’s claims
that they are carrying poo bags, and wouldn’t want to do so. Nevertheless, it
is an offence to not produce bags when asked, even if it turns out that you do
have enough in your possession.
Despite the PSPO being operative
over the whole Canterbury district, the Council wrote that their officers will
“largely be using the powers for targeted operations on specific problem areas
or offenders”. As there are already three Dog Control Orders in place from the
time before the 2014 Act came into force, the introduction of the PSPO would
suggest that CCC is primarily looking for more flexibility, allowing them to
enforce these rules anywhere within the district. Though this comes even as the
Council stated that dog fouling is “no more of a problem in Canterbury district
than it is anywhere else”.
Indeed, throughout their public posts,
CCC have maintained that dog fouling is only a problem among a small percentage
of dog walkers, and ‘responsible’ owners have nothing to fear from the PSPO.
Yet with these new powers, CCC have changed the definition of ‘responsible’.
Responsible no longer means simply clearing up after your dog. It means ‘carrying
two bags’.
State power over everyday life
Let’s be clear – nobody likes dog
poo. Even those who are uncaring enough to never clean up their dog’s mess
recognise that it is unpleasant and unhygienic.
But this policy doesn’t address
the wrongful act of not cleaning up after your dog. Rather, it creates the
arbitrary offence of not carrying two bags while walking a dog. It creates the
legal category of a ‘responsible owner’ as someone who always carries at least
two bags with them when in an outdoor public space with their pet, while those who
fail to do this at any moment – even if they always pick up their dog’s mess –
are legally ‘irresponsible’.
It is precisely the more bizarre
cases such as this one which hint at the more sinister reality of state power
since the introduction of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014. This legislation has given local authorities the power to use PSPOs to regulate
any behaviour that could be deemed to have a ‘detrimental effect on the quality
of life of those in the locality’, as judged by the individual officer(s)
and/or councillor(s) who propose the order. Notably, as there is no legal
obligation for councils to consult with the public before implementing a PSPO,
the view of a single or small number of unelected officials can be all that is
needed to take away the freedom to perform an activity in public. As such, nearly any activity, no matter how mundane, could become an
offence ‘by proxy’.
This troubling consequence of the
legislation is illustrated quite clearly by this interaction between Canterbury
City Council and a member of the public on Facebook:
[NAME
REMOVED]: Is this actually legal? Can they
issue a fixed penalty notice for not carrying enough poo bags?
Canterbury City Council: Hi [NAME REMOVED]. It's not an offence to go out without
dog poo bags. But it is an offence to breach a measure contained in a Public
Space Protection Order. And because the dog poo bag rule is in our PSPO, that's
how it can be enforced through a fixed penalty notice. I hope this explains
it.
With such interfering regulations
being increasingly approved across the country – with less democratic oversight
– more and more groups and individuals within our society are recognising the risks
that PSPOs pose to our everyday freedoms. A recent Change.org petition demands that councils stop using PSPOs to
target dog owners, and that the guidelines for using such regulations in the
future be tightened. The petition calls for councils to provide verifiable
evidence for any claims they make against dog owners, and that all proposed
regulations are subject to a full public consultation process. After only a few
days, the petition had already garnered over 7,000 signatures.
This petition adds to the extensive
list of campaigns against PSPO proposals in recent years, which have challenged
attempts by councils to micromanage activities from the commonplace, such as rough
sleeping, begging, busking, and even swearing; to the seemingly ridiculous and situational,
such as chalk drawing, carrying a golf bag, or selling lucky charms.
For those who may be wondering
what real impact these apparently petty regulations will have, it’s true that Canterbury’s
new dog fouling measures are going to be inconsequential in the lives of most
people in the district. It’s true that, particularly at a time when council
resources are tight, your chances of encountering an enforcement officer when
walking your dog, let alone receiving a fixed penalty notice, are minimal. But
it’s the ability of councils to micromanage acts so banal and seemingly
harmless – freedoms that we take for granted – that signals why everybody
should be concerned about the powers contained within PSPOs. We should all be
questioning the limits of state power when an act as immaterial as ‘not
carrying two bags’ can be deemed an offence.
