Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Friday 2nd February 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I apologise to the House, but my vocal cords will support only a short speech and I will need to decline interventions. Livestock worrying is an issue of significant concern for farmers and rural communities. It causes much distress and cost to animals and farmers. It is already an offence through the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but the police have sought greater powers to more effectively detect and enable the prosecution of such offences.
The Bill provides for the inclusion of attacks as well as worrying as offences. It extends the area covered beyond the land to a road or path, in order to address attacks where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides the powers of entry and search through warrant and allows dogs to be detained to avoid further attacks while an owner is awaiting trial for such an offence. It allows for more modern ways to gather evidence from a dog, including taking dental impressions and other relevant samples, and updates the fines that can be imposed. The Bill will include camelids—alpacas and llamas—in the definition of livestock for the purposes of the 1953 Act.
In keeping this speech short, I am conscious that I have not been able to answer several of the questions that people inside and outside the House may have on why this or that specific issue is not covered in the Bill—or at least not yet. I know that the Minister has a good briefing pack and may cover some of those points. However, I want to thank various groups, including the National Farmers Union, for their support of the Bill.
When the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was set aside and the Government explained at the time why that was, I pledged to the House that the Government would support our manifesto commitments in that Bill to be enacted through single-issue Bills. That is now happening, including through this Bill. We want to see an effective deterrent to this kind of harm to livestock, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. I certainly hope to speak to it more in Committee. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her perseverance in not only presenting this Bill, which I know she was interested in when she was Secretary of State, but managing to get here and deliver her speech today despite her affliction. I will speak very briefly. I should declare my entry in the register as a farmer, including of livestock, and my interest as a dog owner. One of my dogs has had occasion to chase deer—they are not categorised as livestock, I do not think, in the Bill—in woods, which can be a cause of considerable distress when she does not return despite our entreaties.
I rise on behalf of farmers across the country, but in particular in my constituency in Shropshire, where a quarter of all sheep across the UK are produced from within an hour of Craven Arms, in the centre of my constituency. There are a great many livestock farmers, and sheep producers in particular, along the Welsh borders, as the House will appreciate. This measure is in considerable part directed at helping those farmers with these unfortunate incidents. A survey of NFU Mutual members—that is the insurance arm of the National Farmers Union, of which I am a member; it is my insurer—estimates that the cost of dog attacks on farm animals was £1.8 million in 2022.
This is a real and present issue for livestock farmers, in particular in spring—the time of year we are about to enter—when sheep are lambing or on the point of lambing. If pregnant ewes are chased, it can lead to the abortion and loss of the lamb they have carried for months. It can impact not only on farm incomes, but on the health and wellbeing of the livestock managers themselves if they have to deal with dangerous dogs causing trouble to their livestock.
If the Bill proceeds to Committee, I hope that some consideration will be given to the requirement to keep dogs on a lead not just in open fields but on open common land. There are many commons along the Welsh borders in my constituency, most of which are grazed by sheep. It is important that, if sheep are present, people keep their dogs on a lead on a common, which is not the normal practice in many of the commons that I visit locally. That might need to be looked at in Committee. I am conscious that this will be a short debate, so I will conclude by assuring the Minister that the Bill has my support.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak to the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), which I fully support. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, she is well known in this House as being the main organiser of karaoke sessions. If her voice were in full throttle, I am sure she would have made her case with all the gusto with which she belts out songs at those karaoke evenings. Alas, we will have to wait for another day for that.
This is an important Bill. In my time in Parliament, I have been involved in amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and, more recently, in my private Member’s Bill on hare coursing. This Bill gets the fact that it is not about the dogs but about owners. It is about the possession of the dogs. It is about trying to improve the behaviour of dog owners.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me a point of levity—it is kind of serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is about to speak. I fear that her contribution will include a story about her dog Violet, a lovely cocker spaniel. I therefore feel that I need to own up to something. It was one of those days when Back Benchers were asked to go canvassing in a by-election. Obviously, the Conservatives were looking forward to a resounding victory in that by-election. I was joined in a small group of Conservative Back-Benchers by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and some others. We were knocking door to door, and someone had to hold the cards and mark down people’s voting intentions. My hon. Friend decided that she would do that, and she entrusted to me the safe custody of her lovely dog Violet.
My hon. Friend asked me to go to house No. 1 and meet the family. I went to that door in that particular street, and immediately heard barking from inside. I took Violet and moved her behind me. The lady answered the door and said, “Don’t worry, he’s on a lead.” A few seconds later, her husband left with a dog—it was the dog that was on the lead. He left to one side, and my eyes carefully followed the dog, with Violet protected behind me. It was only when the gentleman got into his car that another dog came out and attacked poor Violet. One can imagine my hon. Friend’s feelings, barely three minutes after she had entrusted me with the dog, when I ran down the street with Violet in my hands, blood rushing from her neck.
My point is not only to put on record my apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) will be laughing, because he was there, too. My point is that control of animals is a risky business, whatever the circumstances. Control of dogs with the best of behaviour is a risky business. The Bill seeks to ensure that that behaviour is kept to the highest standard and, importantly, to bring up to standard some of the powers that the police need to enforce the law.
One of the issues related to the Hare Coursing Bill was that the police did not feel that they had the appropriate measures, in particular the ability to seize and detain dogs. In those instances, the dogs doing hare coursing were being gambled upon, and therefore were valuable to the owner. But in all cases the ability of the police to take away the dog and to charge the kennel has a deterrent effect. I am pleased to see those provisions in this Bill.
I am also pleased, perhaps unusually, to see clause 4, which gives a justice of the peace the power to authorise the police to enter and search a premises. A survey by the National Sheep Association asked how many times animals have been worried or attacked, and I think 70% of respondents reported such an experience, but in only 14% of cases—barely one in 10—did the owner of the dog alert the owner of the livestock to the crime. Either people do not feel that a crime has occurred or they do not think it is important enough, so a lot of the evidence and information will be taken away. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is crucial that the provisions in clause 4 are put into law.
I welcome this Bill, and I again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal on moving it forward. This is a live issue, and I heard a case at a constituency surgery just last Friday. It did not involve livestock, but it certainly did involve out-of-control dogs worrying local people. My constituents are worried about attacks. In fact, one constituent’s dog had just been ripped to pieces by dogs that were loose. For the sake of my constituents in Moggerhanger, for those who have pressed the issue of dangerous dogs in towns and villages, for those who have suffered from hare coursing on their properties, and now for farmers who want to look after their livestock, I fully commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think we are all awaiting an update on Violet. I call Virginia Crosbie.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I start by congratulating—llongyfarchiadau—my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on bringing forward this important Bill.
One of the first things I did as a new MP in 2020 was meet with local farmers Brian Bown, Celfyn Furlong and Peter Williams in the Tafarn Y Rhos in Rhostrehwfa, and they were concerned about livestock worrying. To ensure that my farmers’ voices were heard in Westminster, I undertook a journey to act on their behalf. I visited farmers like Tecwyn Jones at his farm in Bodedern and Gareth Hughes at Cleifiog farm in Valley. Tecwyn lost seven pregnant ewes and three rams in an attack by an unknown dog or dogs, described by police as “brutal” and “horrendous”.
I held meetings with Rob Taylor and Dave Allen from the North Wales Rural Crime Team, NFU County Adviser Iestyn Pritchard, the National Trust and DEFRA officers, whom I thank, to understand how the existing legislation is failing and what would be required to protect farmers and promote responsible dog ownership in future. For my Ynys Môn farmers, I am delighted that my name is on this important Bill as a sponsor, but credit should go to them for raising this important issue. My farmers made it clear to me that the legislation currently covering livestock worrying, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. This is hardly surprising given that it has barely been touched in over 70 years and has not kept pace with dog ownership, leisure trends, DNA technology or modern farming practice.
Working together, we developed a ten-minute rule Bill to amend the 1953 Act, which I laid before Parliament in July 2021. That Bill would have given the police powers to seize a dog or other items and to take DNA samples where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the dog has worried livestock; provided a clearer and tighter definition of the phrase “close control”, making it a legal requirement that dogs must be on a lead when near livestock of any kind; and removed the maximum £1,000 fine so that irresponsible dog owners realise the full financial impact of their actions.
The proposals in my Bill were subsequently put forward for incorporation into the proposed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. However, in May 2023 the UK Government announced that, in order to get important legislation through Parliament, the kept animals Bill would instead be taken forward as a series of single-issue Bills. Like many, I was disappointed that the passage of the kept animals Bill was stopped. However, I am reassured that the Government have been true to their word and are putting the proposals through as individual pieces of legislation, as we can see in this important debate. I am delighted that DEFRA is now prioritising livestock worrying and has asked my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State, to take the changes forward in her private Member’s Bill.
Agriculture has been the backbone of Ynys Môn for centuries. At the beginning of the 13th century, the island was known as “Môn Mam Cymru” and “the granary of Wales”. In the 17th century, livestock rearing and dairy farming began to replace arable land. The systems of hedgerow enclosures still form our landscape today. Many of our farms are still small—most are between five and 100 acres—compared with those in other parts of Britain. Consequently, herds are relatively small, and livestock can feel like members of the family. That is why brutal dog attacks hit Ynys Môn farmers particularly hard.
Let me tell the House a little more about farmer Tecwyn Jones from Bodedern. Tecwyn went out one day to tend his sheep and found seven pregnant ewes and three rams dead in his fields. They had been killed by an unknown dog or dogs in what police described as a “brutal” and “horrendous” attack. When I visited Tecwyn’s farm, he told me about the impact that the attack had had on his business and his wellbeing. His account of the event was harrowing. He shared the awful moment when he found his sheep brutally killed: he came across one dead carcase after another in the pouring rain. Those sheep, which he had lovingly reared and cared for, had clearly suffered horrendously. Tecwyn was visibly upset and shaken when he related the story to me. The dogs that carried out the attack have never been identified. Even if a dog were suspected, the law has no teeth to identify and seize it unless it is found unsupervised at the scene of the assault. For Tecwyn, it was not just the financial loss that hit him—although that went into the thousands of pounds—but the emotional loss of those prized animals, which he had put time and devotion into rearing.
Tecwyn is not alone. This is a huge issue for farmers across the UK. Livestock worrying takes place when dogs that are not kept under proper control attack or chase livestock, particularly sheep. Although attacks are not officially recorded, and it is widely accepted that many incidents go unreported, it is estimated that around 15,000 sheep are killed by dogs each year. Over the pandemic, many of us were encouraged to get out into nature, and there was also an increase in dog ownership. That led to an increase in livestock worrying, which continues to be a problem today. National Farmers Union data indicates that the average insurance claim for attacks is over £1,300, and some claims reach the tens of thousands of pounds. In 2020, the cost of livestock worrying to the farming community was estimated to be £1.3 million.
The Government’s animal welfare action plan refers to the need to keep dangerous dogs legislation effective. I am very pleased that the Bill picks up many of the changes that I proposed three years ago, which included giving the police powers to seize a dog or other items and to take samples such as dental impressions where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the dog has worried livestock; and putting the financial responsibility on the dog owner rather than on the farmer. Dog attacks can cost farmers tens of thousands of pounds, so it is only right that the dog owner is made to pay for the damage caused.
Surveys show that only 40% of dog owners accept that their dog could injure or kill a farm animal, and that 64% of dog owners allow their pets to roam free in the countryside, despite half of them admitting that their dog does not always come back when called. Experience shows us that the natural instincts of even the most well-behaved domestic dog can take over when other animals are in close proximity. Even without physical contact, sheep can die or miscarry as a result of the distress and exhaustion caused by a dog chase. By their very nature, pet owners and farmers almost universally care deeply about animals, and much of solution to this problem is about raising awareness of the countryside code through legislation. It is vital that dog owners who live near or visit land on which livestock is being raised understand that.
As a dog owner myself—my cocker spaniel, Violet, sends her regards to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller)—I hope that this legislation, alongside an effective communication plan, will serve to educate dog owners. On behalf of Tecwyn and all farmers who have suffered financial and emotional loss through dog attacks, I support this excellent and important Bill. Once again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal on introducing it. Diolch yn fawr.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on introducing the Bill. I am sorry about her throat, and I hope her voice recovers quickly. Livestock worrying causes havoc for farmers up and down the country. The vast majority of dogs are much-loved and good-natured family pets, but a small minority are not keep under control, allowing them to aggressively chase down, attack and, in some cases, kill livestock. Farmers are left to cope with the stress of injury to and death of their livestock.
There is rising concern in the farming community about dog attacks. This week, I visited the Oulton family farm in Audley, near Newcastle-under-Lyme. They told me how frequently they experience dogs chasing and attacking their livestock, only to be told by the owner that the dog does not normally behave like that. Another farmer I spoke to told me that, quite horrifically, someone had deliberately brought and set aggressive XL bully dogs on her sheep, but the police had not considered it serious enough to even turn up at the scene of such an appalling crime. That is quite clearly unacceptable. The NFU’s own data has found that attacks on farm animals have cost £1.8 million in the past year alone, as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) pointed out. That is a staggering cost to farmers at a time when they face the perfect storm of excessively high energy bills and record-high levels of personal taxation.
The Bill makes important progress on improving police powers to crack down on livestock attacks. It is right to raise the penalties for livestock worrying and make the regulations clearer, but we also must use this opportunity to ensure that we educate responsible owners about better controlling their dogs when they are near livestock. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said, pet owners and farmers care deeply about the welfare of their animals, and a big part of the solution to the problem must lie in raising awareness of the countryside code. It is vital that dog owners who live near or visit land on which livestock are being raised understand that, even without physical contact, sheep can die or miscarry as a result of the distress and exhaustion caused by a dog chase.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals concludes that most livestock worrying incidents are caused by unaccompanied dogs and, to a lesser degree, dogs being walked by their owners. Responsible dog owners can play a major part in solving the problem by ensuring that their dogs are kept on a lead and are adequately socialised and trained, so that their pet does not pose a risk to livestock. Owners must also ensure their property is secure to prevent dogs escaping from their homes and gardens. Farmers and livestock owners can take measures to ensure that there is visible signage in fields where livestock are present and to swiftly report any incidents to the local police. The police, of course, should be expected to respond promptly.
The Bill is a first step in preventing the harms that dogs can cause to livestock. Labour fully supports the Bill and will look to strengthen it, should it reach Committee and Report stages, to ensure that livestock are properly protected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for her tireless commitment in terms of meeting her constituents and the work she did through her 10-minute rule Bill. The Bill builds on the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) in meeting his constituents and raising their concerns, as well as that done by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). It has been good to hear the many contributions throughout the debate.
When the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was withdrawn in May last year, Ministers committed to delivering the measures in the Bill individually, and this Bill takes forward key measures on livestock worrying from that Bill. It will amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to strengthen police powers and extend the location and species in scope of that Act. The UK has the highest animal welfare score in the G7, according to the World Animal Protection index, and some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. I am well aware of the support that animal welfare has in this country through the volume of correspondence that I receive not only through the Department and my officials but as a constituency MP representing Keighley and Ilkley. That strength of feeling is apparent again in this debate, and the Government will fully support this important livestock-worrying Bill through Parliament.
Animal welfare continues to be a priority for this Government, and we have already delivered against a number of commitments to date. We have increased the penalties for those convicted of animal cruelty. We have announced an extension of the Ivory Act 2018 to cover five more endangered species. We have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 and launched a dedicated committee. We have made microchipping compulsory for cats and, having visited Yorkshire Cat Rescue in Keighley, I know how important that issue is. We have successfully banned glue traps. We have introduced new powers for tackling hare coursing, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made such committed efforts to achieve. We have supported private Members’ Bills to ban both the trade of shark fins and the domestic advertising of low- animal-welfare-experiences abroad. We have protected the welfare of service animals through Finn’s law and banned commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens, which, again, is something that all of us in this House have been contacted about via our constituents. We have also modernised our licensing system for activities such as dog breeding and pet sales. I hope that that reassures the House that the Government are working hard to take steps to further improve our already high standards on animal welfare.
The Bill builds on the Government’s ambitious programme of animal welfare reforms, and we are pleased to support it. The Government take livestock worrying incredibly seriously, recognising the distress that it can cause both animals and farmers. Livestock worrying can have awful impacts. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury and even death. There are also wider psychological impacts on livestock as a result of worrying, such as that caused by abortion, which was picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). These impacts go beyond the animals and their welfare. We must also be conscious of the negative implications on the health and wellbeing of our farmers who are devastatingly impacted, as well as experiencing financial loss.
The Bill amends the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which underpins livestock worrying offences and enforcement. Since its introduction over 70 years ago, the number of livestock in England and Wales has doubled. Dog ownership has increased by more than 20% between 2011 and 2020. In 2021, a report by the Pet Food Manufacturers Association estimated that 33% of households in the UK now own a dog, which is another reason it is so important that we introduce this Bill now.
The all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare estimated in its 2017 report entitled “Tackling Livestock Worrying and Encouraging Responsible Ownership” that there are 34,000 incidents of livestock worrying per year in England and Wales alone. There is also the additional financial cost, with the National Farmers’ Union estimating that, in 2020 alone, the cost of livestock worrying across the UK rose by more than £100,000 to £1.3 million.
Existing legislation provides a specific offence of allowing a dog to worry livestock, with a maximum fine of £1,000. All reported crimes should be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. The Bill seeks to reduce instances of livestock worrying and attacking by focusing on two key areas: expanding the locations and species in scope of the offence; and strengthening police enforcement powers.
The Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths. This will help protect livestock when they are being moved, for example, from one enclosed field to another, such as cows going across the public highway to the milking parlour, or sheep being moved from one field to another across the public highway.
The Bill will also extend the species protected by the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. The Alpaca Society estimates that there could be as many as 45,000 alpacas owned by its members in England, with a further 20,000 owned by non-members. The Bill will also improve the ability of the police to enforce by making provision in relation to the powers of entry, seizure and detention of dogs, and the collection of vital evidence, such as DNA from blood on a dog’s collar.
We have engaged extensively on all these measures with key stakeholders, including the livestock and farming sector, animal welfare, police and veterinary sectors. These measures are vital in tackling the issue of livestock worrying and will greatly strengthen the existing legislation to decrease instances of livestock worrying and attacking. The importance of this Bill is evident from the discussion we have had today, and I look forward to its proceeding through all stages in the House. I conclude by once again thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for bringing forward this crucial piece of legislation.
Dr Coffey
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken today. We have seen from their constituency examples why this update to the legislation is needed. I thank the Government for their support. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I thank the officials and my parliamentary team, who have taken the Bill this far. I hope we can get it swiftly through the House to ensure that for farmers, rural communities and the animals themselves, that deterrent effect will be in place. It is much needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin consideration, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is allowed, apart from the water provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I believe that the House is likely to be voting at 5 pm, and there could be six votes. If we continue to that time, we will be coming back, so it could get very late; Members might like to adapt the length of their speeches accordingly. My selection and grouping list for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. One amendment has been tabled. We will have a single debate on all clauses, the amendment and the schedule.
Clause 1
Livestock worrying: scope and consequences of offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.
Amendment 1, in the schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out from “conviction” to end of line 30 and insert—
“(a) except in a case falling within paragraph (b) below, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale,
(b) in a case where the person in question has previously been convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of the same dog, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
The schedule.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have agreed to be members of the Committee. There is a variety of Bill Committees—this is my second today—but that just shows people’s passion for ensuring that we have good, focused legislation, whether tabled by the Government or tabled, as in this case, by Members across Parliament. This Bill is an attempt to address concerns about the offence of livestock worrying.
The provisions were originally in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am conscious that people wonder why that Bill was paused. It started to become a somewhat unwieldy Bill that all sorts of things were being tagged on to that went considerably beyond the original purposes of that Bill. The Government, of which I was at the time a part, therefore decided to pause that Bill, but to come back with a more detailed one. I made that commitment when I was in office, and I am glad that, despite my having left office, the Government are still committed to the provisions of this Bill.
On Second Reading, I basically lost my voice—I think I managed less than a minute. I do not intend to speak for very long today, as I know that others are interested in raising specific points, but I want to summarise the Bill, as the notes eloquently do. I also thank officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their help in getting to this point.
In essence, the Bill is an attempt at simplification. Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, because animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. Clause 1(a) brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence, because as anybody who has ever been to a farm with livestock knows, livestock do not sit in one field all their lives; they are moved around, and we need to ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock as they are moved. That simplifies the situation: it not only makes it clear that dogs should be under the control of their owner or the person walking them, but gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog, rather than those costs falling on the police.
Simply doing some modest extensions is an important element of clause 1. Rather than trying to cover every animal under the sun, as has happened in other jurisdictions, it is ultimately about keeping the Bill in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned about the safety of their animals.
Clause 2 basically updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. In particular, we are starting to see some phrases about dogs that pose a continuing threat. The clause says:
“(1) A constable may seize a dog if—
they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path”.
The reason for doing that is to make it more straightforward for police to grab a suspected dog, in order to stop such behaviour happening and avoid the potential impact on livestock, without having to go to court or wait until an owner is convicted of an offence.
Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up to date about getting evidence—for example, taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. I am sure the Minister will explain in more detail why we are including both “attacking” and “worrying” in the Bill. Again, to give a simplified view, people should be aware that this is not just about a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig; just running around them can cause distress to the animal and severe consequences, such as aborting. It is about those sorts of things as well. There is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff. We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack—direct contact with the animal by the dog—but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed.
From discussions with the police, I anticipate that most sampling should be quite straightforward, but a more detailed examination of a dog may be required at times in order to establish the connection to a specific incident. If it is deemed that that would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately.
Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search via application to a justice of the peace. There have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog and then they do not; the dog disappears, never to be seen again. It ends up somewhere else or something else happens to it. The clause basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied in order to ensure that evidence can be seized quickly.
Clause 5 covers the extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title. I am grateful that the Department agreed that we should try to ensure that the Act comes straight into force at the end of three months. There were discussions about England and Wales, and whether this an animal welfare matter, which should be devolved. Actually, this legislation is not specifically about animal welfare. It is keeping in line with the original intent of the 1953 Act. As a consequence, it is to be debated by the UK Parliament and does not require discussion by the Senedd of Wales or Welsh Ministers. I hope that explains why the matter is reserved and why a legislative consent motion is not required.
The schedule is a way of tidying up aspects of the 1953 Act. Paragraph 1(6) amends section 1(4) of the Act and talks about “attacking” or “worrying”, which ensures the Bill covers what it is supposed to.
I tabled amendment 1 because, after looking at the original Act and having discussions with various organisations, I was concerned that it seemed that the penalties would be declining. I want it to be easier to get convictions, but I do not want to reduce the penalties available. I must admit that I drafted the amendment without going to the Department for further legal advice. I know the Minister is minded to accept its sentiment but would like the Government to table a cleaner legal version on Report. I am happy for them to do that.
We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across this country. We have just been in lambing season, and many right hon. and hon. Members have examples of awful attacks in their constituencies. We see on social media—it has been coming up a lot on things such as TikTok—that farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact. People are somewhat in denial about that.
It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. Their owners have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose. People have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all of the farmers and one shepherdess from my constituency I met had a shotgun licence, and not all of them wanted to do that; they wanted the owners to be responsible. Hopefully, the deterrent of a potentially unlimited fine will make people more aware of what their best friend—their dog—could be doing to other animals if they are not under good control with good recall. That is why I am keen to ensure the deterrent is sufficiently strong.
I am conscious that I sprung the amendment on the Department at the last minute. I am very grateful to the officials and our Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, for all the advice they have given along the way in getting us to this stage. I will not go through the ins and outs of the amendment, but I thank the Minister’s private secretary, Tania Wimpenny, who was my private secretary when I was in the Department, with whom I had a good discussion. What she may not have revealed to the Minister among all the excitement is that she is now engaged to be married. I wanted to ensure that that is in Hansard. I congratulate her on that.
I hope people realise that this Bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail in the clauses, but that is often the case when we try to amend other legislation. These modest, sensible changes will be important for our farmers and the animals for which they care. I hope the Bill will get through the Committee today.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Thank you, Mrs Latham, for calling me to contribute to this Bill Committee. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on introducing this Bill and on its reaching Committee. It is a very important Bill that addresses a problem that affects many of my constituents in Ceredigion.
In recent years, I have had to speak to too many farmers who have been victims of dog attacks on their livestock. Suffice it to say, such attacks are devastating, not only for the animals concerned but for the families and the farmers. Many have told me that they dread looking out the window in the evening to see their livestock hurrying about in fear of a repeat attack. It is very important that this Bill has reached this stage, and I congratulate the right hon. Lady on stewarding it this far.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency there is a lot of common land, where livestock graze with permission from the trustees of that land. Is that covered by this excellent Bill, on which I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal? If the hon. Gentleman does not know, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will clarify matters.
Ben Lake
I believe that I am safe in saying—I am grateful to Government Members for their encouragement —that the powers do extend to livestock grazing on common land. That is important because we need to ensure that when such attacks happen, the owners, regardless of the livestock concerned, are assured that police have the powers necessary to fully investigate and hopefully put a stop to any repeat attacks, which often happen in my constituency. It is believed that the same dogs have committed attacks there more than once.
I reiterate my support for the Bill and congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal once again on bringing it forward.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I should make a declaration of interest: I own land on which livestock is kept.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal on doing an enormous service for livestock farming and those engaged in it not only through this valuable Bill but during her service as Secretary of State. Throughout her time in office, she took valuable steps towards enhancing the livelihoods of those whom I represent in my constituency. Her work is being carried on by the current Secretary of State.
I shall address just one or two elements of the Bill not in a critical spirit but in, I hope, a constructive one. I hope we can give some subsequent attention to my first concern about the Bill—the Minister may be able to help me by answering some of my questions or by reflecting on changes that could be introduced in subsequent stages—which is that at the moment several pieces of legislation could apply to the mischief at which this Bill is aimed. We have the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which this measure amends, but we also have the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Section 3 of the 1991 Act makes it an offence to be the owner of a dog that is dangerously out of control, and the guidelines that the Crown Prosecution Service published on that offence suggest that a dog that is causing serious injury to other animals, including livestock, is potentially evincing evidence of being dangerously out of control.
We have, then, the offence in section 3 and the offences under the 1953 Act. What we do not have is coherence in the guidelines for prosecution and enforcement between when the Dangerous Dogs Act can be used and when the offence is of attacks on, or worrying, livestock. Having served as a Law Officer, I think there may well be a case for the re-publication of new guidelines on enforcement and prosecution, but the reason why I draw attention to the matter is that, even with the changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is introducing to the penalty provisions, it seems to me that they are extraordinarily light for the top end of this type of offending. An offence with a £1,000 maximum fine will generally be visited not with the maximum by a magistrates court but by a fine potentially of just a few hundred pounds—in other words, the cost of perhaps a few parking tickets—yet the impact, suffering and mischief that attacks by dogs on livestock cause to farmers and farming families are severe, and wholly out of proportion to a fine of a few hundred pounds.
My right hon. Friend will know—because I have discussed it with her—that just a few weeks ago the Dawe family, who are neighbours and constituents of mine, were subjected to an extraordinary overnight attack in which no fewer than 27 lambing ewes and lambs were killed—their faces ripped off and their bellies torn open. Many of them had to be put down when, in the morning light, that appalling scene of carnage was discovered. The irresponsibility of an owner who allows their dogs to roam free and to cause damage of that appalling character is not reflected by a fine of a few hundred pounds. Now, you may say to me, Mrs Latham, that perhaps in those circumstances an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act should be considered, and I would agree, but what we need is a coherent set of guidelines that sets out when the various offences in the hierarchy that exists should be considered by both police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second point that I wish to make is an allied point. It is astonishing that neither the Dangerous Dogs Act nor, certainly, the 1953 Act permits the court to disqualify an owner from owning a dog. I strongly submit to the Minister, for future consideration, perhaps in this Bill, that this offence ought to be added to section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which lists the offences that gives to a court the power to disqualify a person from dog ownership. It may be that there is a lacuna, and under the Dangerous Dogs Act the normal remedy in those circumstances would be the destruction of the animal, but if the court decides that the animal should not be destroyed, surely some attention should be given to whether an owner with a dog so dangerously out of control—or even a dog that worries livestock, whether once or repeatedly—should not be allowed to own a dog until further order.
The two points that I recommend to the Minister, then—it may be that those assisting him can say that my fairly preliminary inspection of the laws in this field is wrong, and I can be reassured—are twofold. First, we need coherent guidance as to the way police investigate and prosecution prosecute, as to the balance to be struck and the considerations to be thought through, and as to the application of either a section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act offence or an offence of worrying sheep or attacking livestock, of the kind my right hon. Friend is dealing with. Secondly, we need to consider whether the offences, even those she is amending, are sufficient for this purpose. A repeat offender will be fined under level 5. That is an unlimited fine and that is good, but the repeated worrying of sheep or worrying of any livestock is not, many would say, sufficiently visited with adequate punishment by a fine alone. I commend that approach to the Minister, and if I am wrong about that or the policy of the Government is not to adopt it, we need at least to consider when section 3 should be used.
Finally, we need to consider the question of disqualification and whether or not this offence should be added to the list of offences under the Animal Welfare Act that make an owner eligible for disqualification. The court, of course, would have discretion; all the usual balancing factors that are relevant under that Act would apply. Where there is a fairly minor case of worrying, one would not expect a disqualification, but in a really grave case—such as that of the Dawe family, whom I have the privilege of representing—a court may take a thoroughly different view.
With that—I say again that this is meant not in a critical spirit but in a constructive one—I congratulate my right hon. Friend again. This is an extraordinarily valuable set of provisions that has been widely welcomed and I hope that we can consider tightening them further in the Bill’s journey through the House.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, I am pleased to appear under your wise guidance, Mrs Latham, as we look at this vital and important legislation. I represent 200 square miles of rolling Hampshire downland, much of it dotted with sheep. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, we have seen our share of horrible incidents over the past few years; the legislation is therefore extremely welcome for me and my constituents—and I declare an interest as a dog owner.
I, too, have some small matters of detail that I want to raise for possible consideration on Report, in the spirit of trying constructively to improve the Bill. I will go through them, if I may. The first is about territorial extent. I am not as legally proficient as my right hon. and learned Friend, but I want to ensure that areas of Crown land are covered, not least royal parks, which often have their own legislation to cover what happens within them. Members will remember the famous case of Fenton chasing deer across Richmond Park—happily, in that case there was a prosecution and a conditional discharge for six months. We need to look at that. In particular, we need to think about the foreshore. There are parts of this country where sheep graze the foreshore, eating seaweed and whatever. It produces delightful slightly salty and sweet lamb, but the foreshore is a part of our landmass that has its own legal status and largely, I think I am right in saying, belongs to the Crown. It would be interesting to see how we can make sure that the legislation applies there.
The second issue that I want to raise is the retention of dogs by the police. When I was at City Hall, in a previous life, I started a campaign to drive out the plethora of dangerous dogs in London and improve the legislation. We got amendments then, but one thing that deterred the police from detaining dangerous dogs was the cost of holding them. Often, a dog would be detained, the trial would be awaited, the dog would be held—sometimes for months—the owner would not show up to the trial and the dog would be destroyed, but the police would be left with the cost. I understand that in this case there is a seven-day limit and I wonder whether we could consider that for amendment on Report.
In my honest opinion, owners will partially pay. They will get to seven days, plead that they cannot afford it and partially pay some of the costs to try to avoid their dog being put down. A game will be played. There needs to be firmer provision: either that, at seven days, partial payment is not good enough and the constable may dispose of the dog, or that an owner can agree immediately upon seizure of the dog that the dog may be disposed of. At the moment I cannot see in the Bill the possibility that, if my dog kills 27 sheep and is seized, I can say to the police there and then, “I don’t want the dog back. Do what you will with it,” at no cost to me.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for inviting me to be on the Bill Committee; I very much hope she does not come to regret it. I am interested in the Bill both in a practical sense—we all want to see livestock properly protected—and as someone who is, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, a veteran of the kept animals Bill. I will come back to that in a minute, because some of the issues that have been raised were addressed in that Bill.
I will not delay the Committee by discussing the harm that is done. I echo the points that have been made. The harm was certainly raised by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), on Second Reading, when he detailed a number of cases in offering the Opposition’s full support for the Bill, which I echo.
It will not come as any surprise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal that I make the point again that we were discussing the kept animals Bill some two and a half years ago. I was delighted that she gave me the first explanation that I have heard for its withdrawal, but I am not convinced by it. That Bill was an extraordinary collection of things in the first place, and the only additions that I recall being made were some amendments—unhelpful ones, I suspect, from the Government’s point of view—from Conservative Back Benchers. It was withdrawn, and we have not had the relevant protections for two and a half years, due to political management issues in the Conservative party. Leaving that aside, there were important points in that Bill, some of which have been brought forward in private Members’ Bills, although that is a chancy way of doing things.
I was fortunate to find the bundle of papers from that period in my office earlier. I am glad that I did because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, the original kept animals Bill was a very different piece of legislation. It was much more comprehensive and introduced the notion of control orders and disqualification orders, which I think would very much address the points that have been raised. I am not clear why a different approach has been taken with this Bill.
The kept animals Bill would have effectively replaced the 1953 Act, but this Bill amends it and is quite different as a consequence. That includes the lack of a debate such as the one we had then—I am sure Members will remember it—about not just the control orders and disqualification orders but the very definition of “worrying livestock” in the 1953 Act. That led to a lengthy and complicated discussion about whether people should be expected to keep their dog on a lead when close to livestock. I am not sure why that has not been reintroduced, either. The then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), declined our amendments, but we were strongly of the view that that would send a very strong message to people that if they are close to livestock, their dog should be on a lead. I would like us to return to that discussion, if possible, and consider including that provision in this Bill.
More could have been done for those reasons, but, having said all that, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this Bill. We support it and I wish it well as it progresses through the House, but it would be good to strengthen it on Report, if possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this incredibly important Bill. From the contributions we have heard in this debate, we know just how impactful it could be on constituents who have unfortunately experienced livestock worrying or livestock attacking.
I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for trying to improve the Bill as it moves through the House. “Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, published in 2021, set out our plans, aims and ambitions across animal welfare. It set out the commitments that we are focused on pursuing to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The Bill supports our commitments to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond efficiently and proactively to the worrying and attacking of livestock by dogs.
The Bill’s purpose is to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It will strengthen police powers and extend the location and species that are within scope of that Act. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have awful impacts. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or death. Our own family farm—I refer Members to my declaration of interest—has experienced sheep worrying and sheep attacking, so I know from experience how detrimental it can be not only to the financial measures of a business but to health and wellbeing. We must also consider the impact of the inability to protect one’s own livestock. Livestock can also suffer wider tragic impacts as a result of livestock worrying, including abortion. Such impacts go beyond animals and their welfare. As I have said, they will also have a direct impact on farmers and lead to financial loss.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal raised a case relating to the difference between attacking and worrying. Paragraph 1 of the schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act and addresses that specifically. Attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock, to recognise the violent nature of such offences.
Statistics from the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society show that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023. That was up by nearly 30% compared with the previous year, which demonstrates why the Bill is so important. In addition, a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association found that 70% of farmers had experienced sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. Some 95% of the 305 sheep farmers surveyed said that they experienced up to 10 cases of sheep worrying every year.
The Bill will improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively by extending powers of seizure and modifying entry powers. It also introduces new powers to take samples and impressions from livestock and the suspected dogs. That should facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect evidence, which, in turn, should improve the rate of successful prosecutions and hopefully reduce the risk of further incidents.
The Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where the offence may take place to include roads or paths. As Committee members have mentioned, it is important to move livestock from one field to another but attacks can happen when that transition is taking place. The Bill addresses the point of roads and paths being considered.
The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying to create separate offences for attacks on livestock and the worrying of livestock, in recognition that both attacking and worrying livestock are serious and devastating. I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. I note the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, however, about other species that could be included, such as ostriches, should things change in future and should farming practices include other species. There may be a wish for that to be considered on Report.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Other Committee members referred to it and expressed support for higher levels of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. The current maximum fine that may be imposed in any case is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000. I understand that my right hon. Friend is keen to amend that fine to provide the courts with the appropriate flexibility to impose a higher fine where that is warranted. We as a Government agree that increasing the fine will serve as an additional deterrent to help to reduce the likelihood of future livestock worrying.
As drafted, however, the amendment is out of step with the current fine guidance as it refers to level 5 fines, when the practice since 2015 has been to provide for unlimited fines rather than level 5 fines. It also includes a tiered approach to take account of reoffending, which the courts can already supply under the Sentencing Council guidelines on aggravating and mitigating factors. As my right hon. Friend referenced, my officials will work with her as the Bill progresses to Report stage, before it comes back to the House, so we can table a revised amendment that will deliver on the desired intent to increase the fines that courts can issue to unlimited, and to act as a deterrent.
I am aware of the support for animal welfare in this country and the interest that the matter continues to receive. The strength of feeling has been apparent again from the discussions that we have heard. I will make a couple of additional points. On common land, the definition of agricultural land in the 1953 Act does not expressly reference common land but it does include land used for grazing, and therefore common land could be in scope of the Bill. Ultimately, it remains a matter for the courts to decide if the land in question is in scope in any particular case, but our interpretation is that common land could be determined by the courts to be in scope as grazing land.
On the shadow Minister’s point about dogs being kept on leads, the Bill does not cover that and, from our experience, there is good reason for that. The Bill deals with having control of dogs, but as Committee members may know, it is not right in every circumstance to have signage that specifically relates to keeping dogs on leads. I am aware of circumstances in Yorkshire where signage has stipulated that dogs must be kept on leads, but then someone might keep a dog on a lead and take it into a field full of cattle. If there are young calves, there will, of course, be mother cows that will want to protect their calves. If the dog owner keeps their dog on a lead and does not let go, there is a risk that the owner will also be put at risk if a mother and calf become separated and the mother wants to take down the dog. It is therefore not right in every circumstance.
That is why dogs being kept on leads does not fall in the scope of the Bill and has not been progressed at this stage. Of course, I would always refer people to the countryside code, which deals with the challenges that have been raised. The Bill builds on the Government’s ambitious programme of animal welfare reforms, and we are very pleased to support it.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
On disqualification, will the Minister go back to the Department and say to his officials that we ought to look at whether committing an offence under the 1953 Act should make someone eligible for disqualification from dog ownership? It would be a simple amendment that could be introduced in this private Member’s Bill, and I sense that there is widespread support for the proposal. If there is a good reason not to do it, the Committee and the House should of course listen to that, but I noticed that he was not going to deal with it—I hope he will forgive me; I may have been premature.
Robbie Moore
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I was just about to talk about the implications of the experience of the Dawe family in his constituency, which was a horrendous scenario where 27 ewes and lambs were attacked—I assume there will have been multiple scenarios where disqualification would quite rightly have applied. While disqualification is not covered by the Bill, it is something that I will consider with officials for the next stage. There may be reasons why that is not in scope of the Bill, but I am absolutely willing to take that away and consider it with officials, as it has been rightly referenced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. We have talked a lot about fines and penalties, but could he advise me whether the court has the power to direct compensation to be paid to the farmers? In many of these cases, the value of livestock is much greater than any fine that can be levied. Of course, the farmer does not get access to the fine money, but they may well need compensation for their business to continue to be viable.
Robbie Moore
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is quite right that the Bill does not deal with that circumstance. Courts will be given the ability through sentencing guidelines to take into account unlimited fines through an amendment that will be introduced on Report, which the Government have committed to; it would therefore be up to the courts to implement that. He is right to reference the fact that the money from such fines will not then be distributed to the farmer, and it will therefore be up to the farmer who has been impacted negatively by sheep worrying or a sheep attack to seek compensation through civil means rather than through the courts. It is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
As I said, the Government are wholly in support of the Bill and we will be considering further amendments that will be introduced on Report. The measures are vital in tackling livestock worrying and will greatly strengthen the existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for bringing forward the Bill.
Dr Coffey
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. With a former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, present, I am conscious that the devil will be in the detail on aspects of law. It is my understanding that disqualification from ownership should be possible, certainly in England. It is technically an issue of animal welfare, which is devolved, so there is added complication there. However, I am happy to explore this further with the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that it is still possible to achieve the outcome that he seeks, whether through this legislation or otherwise.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
The Dangerous Dogs Act does permit disqualification, so although the Animal Welfare Act considers the welfare of an animal, the Dangerous Dogs Act aims at a different mischief. There seems to be no reason why livestock worrying offences should not be included under the same principle as the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Dr Coffey
I commit to my right hon. and learned Friend to go away and work with the Minister and officials on the details of that particular issue. It was my understanding that there were other legal powers available for the outcomes that he seeks, but if that is not the case—he has expressed some concern about the level of detail—we should look to rectify that in future.
Daniel Zeichner
The fact that disqualification was brought forward in the kept animals Bill suggests that this Bill was the appropriate place for it.
Dr Coffey
The then Farming Minister did give an explanation when the kept animals Bill was paused. That Bill covered many issues, which have already been covered in private Members’ Bills and Government Bills in a number of different ways. Those issues have been broken up to try to ensure that the Bills are passed without all the extra things that people had been talking about. This is nothing to do with party political management; I remind the Committee that at one point in the kept animals Bill, we were starting to consider how to hold a chicken—quite far off topic from its original purpose. This Bill tries to simplify matters. I recognise that the hon. Member for Cambridge may have a different perspective on that, but I will stick to what I believe to be the case.
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, as has been said, the Bill extends to agricultural land, which is perceived to have its natural meaning. It is not intended to cover the Fenton situation, although what happened there was unfortunate. We have to bear in mind that quite a lot of what we are dealing with is negligence by owners, rather than criminal intent. We are not getting into the situation of deliberately releasing animals to attack other animals. At the moment, I do not think it would cover a foreshore, but I do not have the precise legal definition. It basically covers bare land that would be used for agriculture. That is pretty comprehensive and certainly should cover the common land that the hon. Member for Neath referred to.
I am mindful of the questions that have been raised today, some of which, as I hope Committee members recognise, will be taken away to see whether further strengthening is needed. I am happy to meet Committee members, but I will also write to let them know about some of the questions that have been raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 May 2024 - (17 May 2024)
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 10, leave out
“clarify the penalty that applies”
and insert—
“increase the penalty that may be imposed”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out—
“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
This amendment increases the fine that can be imposed on a person convicted of the livestock worrying offence. It allows for an unlimited fine to be imposed.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to speak to my own Bill. It has its origins in the topics to be considered on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but for a variety of reasons, which I expect we may go into again on Third Reading, this is now a single-issue Bill. I also rise to speak to the amendments.
In Committee, there was considerable discussion on what penalties would be deemed appropriate. One concern I had—I tabled my own amendment—was simply to ensure that we were not in a situation where the penalties could in any way be less than what had been intended in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. There was no question of that in many ways because the penalty in the original 1953 Act was so small, but it did allow a situation to emerge where there was an increase in penalties or fines against owners of dogs if there had been repeat offences. That is what I sought to discuss with hon. Members, the Minister and officials, to ensure that that was not the case. I was delighted that the Government agreed with that principle and that officials were able to come forward with a different amendment, which I am delighted to be moving today.
Amendment 2 is the substantive amendment—amendment 1 is consequential to it—and if the House agrees to it, the person who commits an offence under the section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine. There is no limit on that fine; it is an unlimited penalty. This has become a trend in legislation in recent times. That matters because Parliament is not putting in place a cap on what can be done. The flexibility that we can give to the courts is an important way of tackling unacceptable behaviour, such as effectively neglecting the conduct of a dog so that it attacks other animals.
I would still expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidelines regarding what will be appropriate, but in Committee it was deemed important to ensure that we reinstate that element of ensuring there could be an escalation, and not some arbitrary cap where Parliament decides once and for all on what the fine could be, depending on the severity of the offence. In Committee we heard of multiple situations involving either one ewe or lamb, or indeed several. As a consequence, I think it right to allow our courts discretion to adjust the fines accordingly, in line with what the public would expect.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this Bill, which I fully support. Will she briefly give a summary of the Bill for those Members who might not have been following its passage as closely as I have?
Dr Coffey
I would be happy to do that, but I think Mr Deputy Speaker might say that is out of order while we are discussing specific amendments. I will make sure that I do that on Third Reading, if my hon. Friend is amenable to that. I am also hoping to get leeway from Mr Deputy Speaker to talk about amendments that we did not table.
Another significant discussion in Committee was about disqualification orders, whether we should be able to apply those, and what legislation was available to do that. The Minister and I both committed to look into the issue further, which we did, and there is a variety of other legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relates to this sort of activity. I am grateful to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer) who responded to members of the Committee who wanted to go further, and discussed why that was not the case.
As I indicated in Committee, I understood that powers were available to undertake such actions, but not specifically in this Bill. I do not know whether that has been shared with the House, but depending on the procedures that are allowed, I would be happy to ask for such information to be placed in the Library of the House. In essence, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 sets out a non-exhaustive definition of when a dog is to be regarded as dangerously out of control, and if necessary a prosecution could be brought under that Act, instead of the Bill. Further legislation even dates back to the Dogs Act 1871, regarding when a magistrates’ court can make a control or destruction order if it appears to the court that the dog is dangerous and not under control. A disqualification order can also be made if the court has decided to make an order for the destruction of a dog by virtue of legislation. That will, I hope, answer some of the questions that I have received from members of the public regarding why certain powers are not specifically included in the Bill.
Although it can be understandably tricky to navigate our legislation, political parties such as the Liberal Democrats seem to excel in ignoring legislation and trying to create it and then accuse others of not doing something when something is already a criminal offence. I want to ensure that it is on the record that we are not ignoring the opportunity for people to be refused the opportunity to own dogs in the future, if they are simply being irresponsible in allowing this sort of attack, it is just that it will not be covered specifically in the Bill. We have basically allowed unlimited penalties to be applied. I think that is good news for aspects of animal welfare, and it will, I hope, be a significant deterrent to people, and encourage them to be more careful with their dogs—we will get into that on Third Reading and discuss why we are doing this at all. The Bill will add strength so that we see a massive reduction in livestock worrying.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her progress with this important Bill. Livestock worrying causes havoc for farmers up and down the country. The vast majority of dogs are lovable and good-natured family pets, and most owners are responsible and would never dream of letting their pet chase down, never mind attack, livestock in fields. However, a small minority of dogs are not kept under control, and run loose and aggressively chase down, attack and sometimes even kill livestock, leaving farmers to deal with the stress of their animals’ injury and death.
We have heard growing concerns in the farming community about dog attacks. Farmers regularly tell me about their personal experiences of dogs chasing or attacking their livestock. A horrific incident was reported to me where someone deliberately set several aggressive XL bully dogs on a flock of sheep, deliberately training them to become more aggressive. The farmer called the police, but they did not consider it a serious enough crime even to turn up—far too often the story with rural crime. There are too many cases like that.
The National Farmers Union found that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023 alone—a staggering cost at a time when farmers face a devastating storm of rising energy bills, high personal taxation and the damaging effects of severe and repeated flooding. I am deeply concerned about the emotional and psychological impact of these incidents on farmers, when their mental health is increasingly at risk. We see that in the tragic fact that farming now has the highest suicide rate of any sector in the UK economy.
I am very pleased that the right hon. Member and the Minister have listened to calls made on Second Reading and in Committee for stronger sanctions against owners of dogs involved in livestock worrying. I welcome the right hon. Member’s amendment in response to requests to allow much more severe penalties, but it is a shame that the Bill does not go further on disqualification in facilitating further deterrence. I listened to what she said about disqualification, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said in Committee, the fact that disqualification was brought forward in the original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill suggests that the Bill is an appropriate place for it.
I wonder whether the right hon. Member has looked further into the merits of including a requirement for dogs to be kept on leads when in close proximity to livestock. The Opposition were not convinced by the Minister’s explanation of why he thought the costs outweighed the benefits of doing that. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge argued, it is entirely reasonable to require dogs to be on leads around livestock. At the very least, we should do more to educate dog owners on how to control their pets and stop them escaping and causing havoc while on the loose. We should certainly promote greater awareness of the countryside code.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution by highlighting the need for dogs to be on leads and the terrible pressures on farmers at this difficult time. Further to the point about education and information for owners, sadly there is a small minority of irresponsible dog owners who have caused terrible problems for farmers. There is a much broader group of dog owners who are responsible, and the point about encouraging the use of leads is important. Would he like further information to be provided to dog owners and families with dogs, to remind them of the importance of having their dog on a lead when they are near livestock?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point and perhaps the Minister will address it. In many cases, of course, when a pet dog attacks animals, the owner will say, “They’ve never done that before—it didn’t happen before,” but clearly it can. The more education people have about the risks, the more likely they are to take action that would prevent that from happening.
In summary, the Bill is a big step forward in supporting farmers and protecting their livestock. The Opposition are keen to see the measures in the Bill introduced as quickly as possible, as they are long overdue and clearly urgently needed. We continue to support this legislation and I wish it well as it continues its journey through the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to speak on what I consider to be a very important Bill. Not only is it important to many countryside lovers, but it has been very much supported by the National Farmers Union and the National Sheep Association, and it will play an important role in strengthening our legislation to deter livestock worrying. I must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her dogged support for the legislation, and those on the shadow Benches for their support; I know the Bill is fully supported.
While I have a farming-linked remit within DEFRA, I am also the access Minister, and the legislation is important in terms of access to the countryside, as well because it will give added awareness to people who are going out with dogs. We are encouraging people into the countryside for many reasons—the health and wellbeing benefits and all that—but, as the shadow Minister mentioned, we need to raise awareness of the countryside code. Taking one’s dog out into the countryside is a wonderful thing, but respect and understanding must be given to the farming community and to all the responsibilities that lie therein for dog owners walking their dogs. This is important legislation and it will help.
I will speak briefly to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. She has listened very carefully to the comments in Committee, which is why she has tabled these amendments. They seem to make complete sense and I know they have had a great deal of support. She wants to be sure, as do others, that the courts have the appropriate discretion to impose a higher fine where it is warranted. The current maximum fine that might be imposed is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000; increasing the maximum fine to an unlimited amount would serve to provide an additional deterrent and help to reduce the likelihood of livestock worrying.
My hon. Friend for the Minister for Water and Rural Growth committed to supporting this amendment in Committee, and I reconfirm that support today. Just to clarify, as was mentioned in the Committee, the maximum fine available will be determined by this legislation and will not depend on the sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, in fulfilment of its statutory duty. As an independent body, the council decides its own priorities and work plan for reviewing guidelines to reflect any legislative changes.
A comment was made about dogs on leads, which I know was discussed in Committee. The 1953 Act does not make it mandatory for a dog to be kept on a lead around livestock, although a person does commit an offence under the Act if the dog attacks or worries livestock on agricultural land. I am pleased to say that the offence includes roads and paths nearby. However, there are often signs stipulating when to put a dog on a lead or where it would be helpful to do so, for example, if there is livestock in the field or in particular where there are cows with calves.
I personally would not go into a field where there were cows with calves, because a cow with a calf attacked me when I was a child, but that is a decision for people to make. If a dog owner keeps their dog on a lead, that can sometimes attract cattle to the dog, so the Committee’s view, which I support, was that, in certain specific circumstances, there is a risk to the owner of keeping the dog on a lead. I think my right hon. Friend agrees with that; perhaps she will add some comments shortly. For those reasons, the Bill is not proposing to go down that road. On that note, I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.
Dr Coffey
With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I am aware that, in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, there was a much greater element of rewriting lots of law. I am conscious that this is a private Member’s Bill with five clauses and a schedule that is already reasonably comprehensive. I looked at the issue very carefully and I am satisfied that it is perfectly straightforward to get the control disqualification orders necessary through existing legislation, without needing to legislate further.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the police already have the necessary powers. We will come to the substantial changes in the Bill shortly, but these amendments are about ensuring sufficient financial penalties. Provisions to have a dog destroyed or to disqualify people from owning a dog are already covered. On his point about keeping dogs on leads, there is a variety of situations in which people will have a dog with them. In addition, people can put a dog on a lead but still not be in control of it. Ultimately, that is what this is about.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment made: 2, in the schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out “not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. —(Dr Coffey.)
Third Reading.
Dr Coffey
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is pleasure to be able to give a short summary of the Bill. The 1953 Act already provides legislation on the subject, but the Bill seeks to make it more straightforward for the police to do their job. In particular, it will allow them to seize dogs to take samples, dental impressions and the like. At the moment, being able to do that relies on the good will of dog owners.
The Bill extends the scope of the provisions, so they do not only apply to a field that a farmer may own where livestock are kept. It recognises that agricultural practices mean that animals are often transferred from one field to another. For example, current legislation does not apply when animals are crossing a road and a dog is out of control, so the Bill extends the scope to cover such situations.
It is important to ensure we have the power of entry. An application to a justice of the peace is still required to get that. The Bill is all about trying to ensure the police have appropriate powers and to make it more straightforward to prosecute the owners of dogs that are not behaving responsibly.
Right hon. Members and hon. Members have rightly talked about what the Bill is really about. It is not about penalising people who want to enjoy the countryside on casual walks, which I fully encourage. It is important for people to have access and awareness of nature and to enjoy the countryside responsibly, but they need to recognise that a living, thriving and working countryside provides many farmers with their livelihoods, which is why livestock need protection.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
A few years ago, I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to the Smithills Estate to plant the first tree in the 15 million tree-strong Northern Forest. One of the key parts of the visit was when children from St Peter’s Smithills Dean Primary School helped to plant those trees. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the importance of education? We want more people from all backgrounds to enjoy the countryside and to know about how to keep livestock safe.
Dr Coffey
I agree very much with my hon. Friend, who is right to recognise that. There have been particular concerns since covid that the training of dogs can often be challenging. The NFU and others have led me to believe that dogs left at home can often break out. The owner will not even know anything about an attack or livestock worrying, but the consequences can be significant. It is not simply that a dog will bite or kill a ewe or a calf; it is important to recognise that even just dogs running around can cause ewes and pigs to have abortions and so on.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank her for bringing forward this Bill. She is a true champion of the farming community in Suffolk and across the country, and she talks about the NFU. She will know that it is not just about the individual cases but about the scale of this problem, which I am happy to say does not exist in Southend. The NFU Mutual data shows that the value of claims for dog attacks on farm animals rose to more than £1.8 million in 2022. I did not know before preparing for today’s debate that, as she points out, it is not necessarily about when a dog comes into contact with a sheep. Just having dogs chasing sheep can cause a pregnant ewe to die or miscarry—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions are interventions, not speeches. If she wishes to speak on Third Reading, she will have the opportunity to do so.
Dr Coffey
I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think my hon. Friend was getting so passionate about this issue that her intervention may have gone on a little too long, but she is right to point out the financial cost and to say that it is about not simply the attack but potential injury and stress, which can have consequences. She is right to highlight that.
I recently held a roundtable about this issue in my constituency, and I spoke to farm managers and shepherdesses about the situation. Members may know that, without any consequences, a farmer or landowner may shoot a dog that is causing worrying, although often farmers do not want to go around shooting other people’s dogs. Indeed, beyond the impact that it would have on them, not all farmers are licensed to do that, which is the situation in which some of the people at my meeting find themselves. They simply want people to have better control of their dogs, which does not necessarily mean that dogs should be on leads. As I have already mentioned in responding to the amendments, dogs can be on leads that are not even attached to the owner. It is control and recall that really matter, but leads are important for people who are unfamiliar with walking in the countryside or who cannot control their dog, for whatever reason. Leads are vital in that regard, and they are a way for us to make sure that people have responsible access to the countryside.
This is the fourth Bill before us today, and I am conscious that those on both Front Benches would like to see further progress on other legislation before the House. I want to thank Tim Pratt, Tilly Abbott, Will Pratt, Ed Hawkins and Heidi Crick, as well as Ella Thackray and Jen Cox from the NFU, who came to speak to me about this issue. I have had multiple representations from right around the country. This Bill extends to both England and Wales, in line with the original 1953 Act, but other legislation is already in place in Northern Ireland and Scotland, where different legal systems have evolved over the years. I believe that this Bill is a straightforward way to make sure that we help our farmers, whose primary role is to grow food to put on our plates and should not be about worrying—literally—about other people’s animals worrying their livestock.
The measures in this Bill were originally included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am pleased to say that we are starting to see other elements of that proposed legislation going through. Just this week, the ban on live exports received Royal Assent, and there have been regulations on other aspects of that issue. It was explained at the time why the Bill was split up, but I am pleased to have played a part and to have fulfilled my commitment to get this legislation through the House.
I am very grateful to our Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has given excellent guidance along the way. I really want to thank the officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the Ministers and the shadow Ministers. I also thank my team, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who have helped through the usual channels to progress this piece of legislation, which I think will be welcomed across the House. Once it gets through the Lords, it is intended that the Act will commence automatically—three months after Royal Assent, I think —so that it is well in place in 2025. I thank Mr Deputy Speaker and colleagues who have spoken in today’s debate, as well.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I will begin by talking about two principles: first, we want people to be able to enjoy the countryside. We are lucky to have it. It can help us keep well, both physically and mentally; it supports wildlife; it is beautiful, of course; and it is world-renowned. I have always been someone who enjoys the countryside—a countryside walk is a fantastic way of clearing one’s mind—but so much of it is accessible and available for us to enjoy only because farmers maintain it. I have previous and current family members who own farmland and keep livestock, and we all benefit from the work and effort that goes into that.
That brings me to the second principle, which is that enjoyment of the countryside has to be respectful. That is why I welcome the Bill that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), undoubtedly using a wealth of experience gained from her distinguished service as the DEFRA Secretary of State. She has always demonstrated a common-sense approach when it comes to balancing issues such as this.
One of the features that so many people enjoy about our countryside is seeing farm animals, such as sheep and cows, grazing peacefully as they pass by, but of course we are a nation of dog lovers, so many people are not enjoying the countryside alone. Sadly, not everyone who takes their dog with them manages to do so responsibly, which can have terrible consequences. As has been mentioned, NFU Mutual data shows that claims from dog attacks on farm animals rose to more than £1.8 million in 2022, and behind those financial claims are distressing stories of killed, injured or frightened livestock and farmers seeing animals for which they care deeply suffering unnecessarily. There is existing legislation aimed at tackling this issue—the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which we are amending today—but as the figures I have mentioned demonstrate, more needs to be done. The NFU and others have long called for reform of the legislation, and it is welcome that we now have the opportunity to do that.
Let me now talk about some of the things in the Bill that are particularly welcome. First, it widens the scope of the 1953 Act to include, for example, roads and paths. The movement of livestock along our country roads is another particularly welcome feature of our countryside—many people have a funny story about being stuck behind a moving herd of cattle. That is something that we enjoy about our countryside, and it would not be the same without it, so the law should protect livestock in those circumstances as well. Secondly, the Bill allows the police to seize a dog that they believe has been involved in an incident when the owner is not present. That is the kind of common-sense reform that is long overdue. Thirdly, the Bill allows samples and evidence to be collected from dogs and livestock. Although policing in urban areas increasingly makes use of CCTV, that sort of evidence is not often available in the countryside, so police need to make use of other evidence to prosecute people successfully.
I am also pleased that, when enacted, the Bill will enable any existing cases to make use of the new powers we are introducing—that is an additional positive feature. I know from my time as a volunteer policeman that so often a small minority of people are responsible for most crime, and I am sure that it is no different in this case. Most people enjoy the countryside responsibly, and most farmers understand that it is important that they get to do so, but we have to protect our countryside, and the farm animals that live in it are a fundamental part of it. As an MP who represents rural areas and farmers, I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing this Bill. I have really welcomed the opportunity to speak, even briefly, in support of it in the House today.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill, and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on having brought it forward. I am very lucky to live in and represent a lovely, beautiful area of Lincolnshire that has gorgeous countryside. Like many people, I like taking my dog, Bonnie, for a walk through the countryside, but as a farmer’s wife, I also recognise that it is a working landscape—that crops are being grown for food, and that livestock is being looked after, too.
Dog ownership has increased since lockdown. Although most dog owners are responsible and most dogs good-natured, research suggests that dogs are now more likely than before to be left off leads or out of sight. The natural behaviour of all dogs is to chase. Many people are unaware that if their dog chases a sheep, it may cause that sheep distress. They may not be aware that even if the dog does not catch the sheep, the simple fact of being chased can cause a pregnant ewe to miscarry her lamb or to die. Not only does that have an emotional effect on sheep by causing them to suffer, but it causes an emotional and financial stress for the farmer, as we have heard, so I welcome these steps to strengthen the law.
As others have mentioned, education on the countryside code is important, and it should extend beyond the Bill to include littering and the closing of gates to keep livestock safe. I welcome the steps to detect where crimes has occurred, as well as the unlimited nature of the fine, which will help to deter people from committing the crime in the first place and encourage them to look after their dogs. I hope that the publicity that my right hon. Friend has generated for the Bill will serve to provide educational opportunities.
Steve Reed
I do not think that I need to add to the comments that I made on Report. We think this is an important piece of legislation and we wish it well as it continues its progress through the other House with wholehearted support from both sides.
Rebecca Pow
I must start, of course, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on guiding the Bill through the House, and by thanking her for all her detailed work, including the holding of roundtables with farmers and country people in her constituency, which was absolutely the right thing to do in order to hear about the matter from the horse’s mouth. I also thank the Opposition for supporting the Bill—it is great to sing from the same hymn sheet once or twice—and everybody else who has contributed today.
We have heard really useful inputs from Members, who have used knowledge from their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) mentioned countryside access, which is such an important point, as I said on Report. The Bill will also help to educate people and give them an understanding about how to respect the workplace of farmers while enjoying the countryside.
The workplace of farmers was mentioned by our own farmer’s wife and doctor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). She said, importantly, that this is not just about the straight slaughter of animals; it is about the frightening, terrifying situation that can arise among a flock of sheep, say, which might later abort or die. That is covered in the Bill through particular references to the situation at large in relation to dogs and sheep.
To summarise, we know that livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have terrible impacts. I do not think that a week goes by when I do not open Farmers Weekly or Farmers Guardian and see a ghastly picture of such incidents. I am especially proud to be the Minister responding today, because I was co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, which did that first report about livestock worrying in 2017. I think that a lot of the data has gradually fed into the legislation as we have moved it along. The APPG reported then that 34,000 livestock worrying incidents occur every year, so it is a significant problem. Not only is it terrifying in terms of animal welfare, but it has a big economic cost: an estimated £2.4 million a year is lost through destroyed animals killed by dogs.
That is why the Bill is so important. It will support our commitment to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond effectively to the worrying or attacking of livestock by dogs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal said—she did so much on this when she was at DEFRA—the Government are absolutely committed to the animal welfare agenda outlined in our 2021 action plan. We have a proud record of delivering on that agenda through a raft of measures brought through in a range of ways. We have increased penalties for animal cruelty, extended the Ivory Act 2018 to include more endangered species, passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, introduced microchipping for cats, banned glue traps, introduced new powers for hare coursing, banned the trade in shark fins and protected service animals via Finn’s law. There is a whole list, and people in this Chamber have been involved in many of those pieces of legislation. It is a very proud record. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill has just passed Third Reading in the House of Lords, and we are supporting Bills that will deliver a new offence of pet abduction, and cracking down on puppy smuggling.
Rebecca Pow
Loud cheers from behind me. We are making great progress on delivering so many of those measures that were originally intended in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I think the record shows, as does today’s Bill, that the Government are dedicated and committed to improving animal welfare. Indeed, we have the highest welfare score of the G7, according to the World Animal Protection index. That is something of which the Government should be proud. I know that Mr Deputy Speaker is a great animal lover as well, so this is very pertinent to him.
We have given the Bill a thorough review today. It will give much added protection to our valuable livestock, and will send important signals to the public regarding access to the countryside with a dog.
Nothing more remains than to thank everybody involved—all of the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill and helped to guide it through both House, and the Opposition for their support. More thanks also go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. I am delighted to support the Bill, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal on taking her Bill through the House.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Monday 20th May 2024
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 May 2024 - (17 May 2024)