Since 2008 only one prosecution has been made for failing to pick up dog mess and no one has been prosecuted for smoking in a company car or for the little-known offence of drinking in a car park.
1 – Picking up dog mess
0 – Smoking in company vehicle
0 – Child not wearing a cycle helmet
And following the introduction of a law making it compulsory for children under 14 to wear a cycle helmet last October, not a single child has been fined.
Elsewhere, of the 372 motorists pulled over for using their mobile phones while driving last year only three per cent of them were taken to court.
The rest had their cases heard at a parish hall inquiry – where fines are lower and where many offenders are just given ‘words of advice’.
The data was released to the JEP after the States voted unanimously in favour of introducing another law earlier this month to make it illegal to smoke in a car when a child under the age of 18 is present. The law will come into force on 1 September and offenders could face fines of up to £2,000.
Health Minister Andrew Green, who brought the legislation to the Assembly, said he was confident it would be adhered to regardless of whether any prosecutions were made.
However, he added that some laws do need addressing and he called for on-the-spot fines to be considered for dog owners who do not clear up after their pet.
‘The success of the law is not measured by how many prosecutions there are.’
Recently the Environment Department launched a campaign called ‘Proud of you for picking up my poo’ to encourage Islanders to clear up after their dogs following repeated complaints about the extent of dog mess both in town and the countryside.
Speaking about the introduction of the compulsory cycle helmet law the minister, whose son suffered a serious brain injury after he fell from his bike when he was nine, said the legislation is not about getting convictions.
‘It was about families not experiencing what mine have where they have a 35-year-old son with the mind of a nine-year-old because of an accident he had when he wasn’t wearing a helmet,’ he said.
‘I have got no evidence to back this up but I have not seen a child who I believe is under the age cycling without a helmet since.’
‘I’m sure there will be people cycling round without helmets that should be wearing them but figures on the number of prosecutions don’t show those who might be getting words of advice from police.
‘I think we have to wait for a whole year to go by before we can assess it. Then we can speak to the Child Accident Prevention group and Accident and Emergency and really see how it has worked.’
Since 2006 one fine of £75 has been issued to a person for not picking up after their dog. Another person was given a written caution and one case was dropped.
Police are currently dealing with a person charged with drinking in a parking place.
ON the face of it, Deputy David Johnson’s call for drinkers and smokers to pay for emergency care at the Hospital sounds appealing. These people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles, so why should the rest of us pay when they suffer self-inflicted injuries? User-pays is, after all, the mantra of ministerial government.
Deputy Johnson made his comments after spending time in A&E and seeing for himself the behaviour of patients who are drunk or on drugs. These people can be abusive to staff, use foul language in a place where children are often found and generally cause a nuisance.
But where do you draw the line? If those who seek treatment for self-inflicted injury as a result of risky lifestyle choices are forced to pay, should we not charge those injured while speeding, playing sport, surfing, or those who spend too long in the sun without wearing sun cream?
Health Minister Andrew Green helpfully brought the debate back to sensible reality and stopped the hares running too far. Yes, staff should be protected from abusive patients, but it was not, he said, the role of doctors to decide who should or should not pay to be treated. That, he said, would hinder their work and could prevent them from fulfilling their oaths as doctors.
Government has a role to play in addressing drinking and smoking, both through education and the enforcement of laws which some say are an infringement of personal freedoms. High levels of duty on alcohol and tobacco are in place to act as a deterrent and the Health Department runs successful public health campaigns and offers help to those who want to quit.
But what of the other side of the coin, the enforcement of laws which give the authorities a stick to correct illicit behaviour? These laws are appearing on the statute books with increasing frequency, often after long consultations, expensive law drafting and States debates, but, as reported today, many are not being properly enforced.
You cannot drive anywhere without seeing someone in a work vehicle puffing on a cigarette and yet there have been no convictions and no ‘words of warning’. Well intentioned as they are, are these laws worth the paper they are written on?
Has the whole process to get them enacted been yet another pointless waste of taxpayers’ money?
