Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak particularly about matters of relevance to this Bill affecting animals and veterinary healthcare delivery. I declare my interest as a past president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, although I stress that I speak tonight as an individual veterinary surgeon. The two matters on which I will concentrate are pet theft and the abuse and threats facing the staff of veterinary practices and retail outlets.

There has been a marked increase of the offence of pet theft recently, apparently mainly perpetrated by organised criminal gangs stealing for profit and exploiting the national shortage of pets—a shortage that has recently been exacerbated by the demand for pets during Covid. This was discussed in the other place during the passage of this Bill and was the subject of various amendments, none of which was accepted by the Government. But Robert Buckland MP, responding for the Government, said it was their intention

“to make any necessary changes to this Bill in the Lords … once we have finalised the detail of exactly what is needed, using a range of powers, including primary legislation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/21; col. 675.]

Pet theft is of course covered by existing theft regulations—animals are chattels—and the maximum sentence for theft can already be as much as seven years, which is a substantial sentence. However, the prosecution rates are extremely low, with only 1% of dog crime cases investigated—not reported—resulting in a charge in England and Wales. Given these facts, would it not be constructive to ensure that the offence of pet theft is given appropriate priority, prosecution rates are improved and guidance in sentencing is revised to reflect what is clearly a substantial public and political concern about this crime? The Home Secretary herself has said that

“Stealing pets is evil and depraved. It brings profound unhappiness. It cannot and will not be tolerated.”


I ask the Minister whether the Government are proposing to bring in amendments to this Bill to reduce pet theft.

The second issue I raise is the abuse and aggression being encountered by staff in public-facing roles that provide animal health and welfare care. This problem mirrors the problems faced by many in front-line public-facing roles, and there is currently protection specifically for assaults on emergency workers in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, the scope of which includes those providing NHS healthcare. Veterinary staff are not included within that protection, nor does it include any protection against abuse and aggression.

Apart from the obvious differences, there are other differences and similarities between NHS staff delivering human healthcare and veterinary staff delivering animal healthcare. Both deal with situations that are emotional and difficult, even without the added problem of aggressive and threatening behaviour. However, animal healthcare is not free at the point of care, so veterinary staff have the additional problem of having to charge clients for the care they seek to give the clients’ animals. Lastly, the veterinary patients are not necessarily as compliant as humans might be. I contend that there are particularly aggravating circumstances that face those delivering animal healthcare.

In the last year and a half, veterinary staff have done a fantastic job maintaining healthcare services with all the constraints required to interact safely with clients. Due to Covid-19 safety procedures and staff shortages, inevitably clients have had to wait a few weeks for routine measures such as booster vaccinations when they are used to appointments in a day or two. Most clients have been understanding, but an increasing minority are unacceptably abusive and aggressive, to the point where staff who are trying to examine and treat sick animals are fearful, feel threatened and are leaving their jobs in some instances, and the police have been called and property has been damaged. It is frequently reception and nursing staff, the majority of whom are female—as indeed are the majority of our young vets—who bear the brunt of this. This is not just Covid-related; there has been an underlying and growing problem, and social media aggravates this situation in many cases.

Sadly, a vicious circle is in danger of emerging, where the loss of staff due to extremely abusive, aggressive behaviour is further exacerbating the challenge of providing the efficient and timely service characteristic of veterinary healthcare. Much greater legal protection for our front-line animal healthcare staff is needed. Will the Government consider extending the scope of the assaults on emergency workers Act to include staff delivering animal healthcare? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that there are existing measures in place to deter abuse and threatening behaviour in the execution of such an important role as delivering animal healthcare?

Immigration: Overseas Students

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for securing this debate on such an important subject for our universities, higher education institutions and research institutes. I want mainly to talk about the benefits to the UK of overseas students, but first I shall comment on the inclusion of students in the migration statistics, which has already been referred to. Of the total migration figures for the year ending March 2016, 26% were students. That is a fact of which I was unaware and, I suspect, most of the public are unaware. Yet surveys show that the public do not regard students as migrants. They do not compete for jobs or deprive our citizens of employment. Is it not time when publicising migration statistics at least to identify that proportion of the figure for net migration which comprises students, accurately to reflect the reality and to allay some concerns?

It is much more important to recognise the huge benefits these students confer on UK plc. Several references have already been made to them. Providing study opportunities for overseas students is surely one of the most cost-effective ways we can exert international influence, discharge our international development responsibilities, enrich our scientific and cultural diversity and quality, gain substantial short-term income and create longer-term and enduring economic benefit for the UK.

I shall consider three of these issues in a little more detail. First, international students directly contribute income to higher education and research institutes through their fees: more than £4 billion in 2015 alone. They also contribute to the wider economy through their off-campus spending. In 2012, that was estimated to be worth more than £7 billion spread throughout the UK. International students significantly strengthen our university departments and courses, especially in vital STEM subjects which might otherwise be economically unviable, and they underpin our centres of excellence in specific areas of international interest. As someone who has worked in two British centres of excellence—in international human health at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and in international animal health at the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh—I am acutely aware of this. Parallels exist in many other institutions in science, technology, sociology and the humanities.

The sustainability of these institutions not only serves an international good but is enlightened self-interest. We live in a shrinking world, and today’s problems overseas can become our problems tomorrow. In the field of human and animal disease, we have seen this in recent years with SARS, Zika, dengue and Ebola, and in a veterinary context we face the continuous threat of foot and mouth disease, blue-tongue and Schmallenberg, and lots of exotically named diseases such as lumpy skin disease are knocking at the door. To protect our nation’s health, human and animal, we need our national capability in these areas, and overseas students are vital in helping to ensure that.

Secondly, the education of international students aids economic development, helps reduce the burden of disease overseas and, by enhancing well-being and economic development, ultimately reduces some of the major reasons people need to migrate in the first place.

Thirdly, as has been said, by educating the brightest and best from overseas, those who will become leaders in their own countries, we establish a cadre of UK alumni who for their lifetime owe a debt of gratitude and loyalty to the UK that will be repaid in countless ways and benefit us as an international trading and research-led economy.

We thus benefit from a triple whammy. Overseas students enrich our institutions, their own country’s development and our long-term political, scientific and economic future. Furthermore, the public do not even consider these students as immigrants. It would be foolish for us to inhibit these colossal benefits, and we are already losing out to competitor countries which welcome overseas students and still foster this role, such as Canada and Australia and even the US. On the contrary, we should actively seek and encourage international students, especially from Africa, Asia and South America, where we wish to expand relationships and trade.

I would like the UK to use more of our admirable commitment to devoting 0.7% of gross national income to international development for this purpose. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to increase the number of overseas students by providing more scholarships for them to study at our world-class institutions?

Hunting Act 2004

Lord Trees Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend raises an important point. In February, Nicola Sturgeon said:

“The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters that purely affect England—such as foxhunting south of the border, for example—and we stand by that”.

That was the SNP’s position then; we know what its position is now, and I think people can draw their own conclusions. It also plays into a wider issue of why SNP Members of Parliament should seek to use their influence to stop England and Wales having the same exemptions as they have in Scotland.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, our society accepts the killing of animals for specific purposes. Does the Minister agree with me that such killing should be strongly justified, should be carried out in as humane a manner as possible and should be done by competent individuals acting in a cool and dispassionate but compassionate way? Furthermore, will he go so far as to agree with me—I doubt that he will—that in a civilised society like ours, we should do all we can to dissuade individuals from pursuing leisure activities for pleasure which result in the killing of animals?

[Lord Bates]

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is very clear that the causing of unnecessary suffering to an animal is an offence and the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine or six months’ imprisonment. That is not what we are talking about here; we recognise in certain circumstances that it is necessary to control pests, particularly in rural areas. The argument made is that the current provisions do not allow that to be done effectively. There is no question of contravening the Hunting Act, as my noble friend has mentioned, because that bans hunting with dogs to kill mammals. That would not be done in this case. It is a case of flushing out using dogs, with the killing done as humanely as possible but at the point of a gun.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale]

Of course not; the noble Baroness is quite right, we did not clash on that occasion. I believe that the Government have listened and the position has moved forward. I know that many organisations would have preferred dog control notices. However, the work that the Government have put in to making the guidance a readable and understandable document and the flexibility of the department in ensuring that it is a workable document, should—this is, of course, the aim—reduce the number of dog attacks. It should also go some way to addressing the real problems introduced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in causing animal welfare issues for so many dogs and so many problems for a lot of owners throughout the country.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 86B and 86C, which propose to extend and strengthen the protection to any protected animal. As Amendment 86A also refers to “any protected animal”, it is reasonable to group the three amendments, but I make the point that even if dog control notices are not accepted, there is still a case under the Bill to extend protection to animals in addition to assistance dogs; I should like briefly to make that case.

The Bill has the commendable aim of seeking to encourage responsible dog ownership and management in a preventive way to reduce attacks on and injury to humans. It extends protection to assistance dogs, which is welcome, presumably on the grounds that they are very important to their owners and perhaps also because such attacks may be indicative of a lack of control of those other dogs which might ultimately present a hazard to humans. I would argue that those same points apply to any pet, and especially dogs and cats.

The social benefit of pets to their owners is well known and acknowledged. Attacks on dogs or cats by a particular dog may well indicate a lack of control on the part of that dog owner and may presage serious attacks on humans.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to this House and compliment him on his fine maiden speech.

The Bill has been described by several of your Lordships as a Christmas tree Bill. I am not sure where dogs come on the tree but perhaps they are around the bottom of it, legs cocked. This is by way of saying that I wish to talk about Part 7, which amends and improves legislation applying to so-called dangerous dogs. I declare my interest as a veterinarian and a long-time member of the British Veterinary Association.

It is important for us to remember that dogs provide great value to human society and we should not lose sight of that, but unfortunately they occasionally can frighten, injure and sadly even kill people or animals. It is important, too, to realise that only a tiny proportion of the 8.5 million dogs in this country are responsible for that harm. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was an attempt to deal with this problem but is widely recognised, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, as being a less than adequate piece of legislation. The fact is that an estimated 210,000 people are attacked by dogs each year; last year approximately 6,500 incidents resulted in hospital admissions and a cost to the NHS of £3 million a year.

The Government have rightly appreciated that the problem with dogs is not so much the dogs but their owners, as several noble Lords have mentioned, and that aggressive dogs are but one tool by which aggressive people express their aggression. As such, it is logical to embrace measures directed at dogs and dog owners within measures directed at other forms of anti-social behaviour, howsoever expressed. However, in designing generic solutions there is a risk of losing the merits and benefits of specific measures. I will elaborate on that in a moment.

The other general point of concern is that while inappropriate training and care by an irresponsible owner may create a potentially dangerous dog, even the most benign dog owned by the most responsible owner may find itself in a situation where the dog exhibits aggression. As a vet, I well appreciate that—try bringing a dog into a strange environment and sticking a needle into it.

So, legislation needs to balance protection of the public with common sense and pragmatism. In the context of this legislation, this is particularly important with respect to aggressive behaviour by a dog on its own property towards an intruder. In general, I welcome the attempt here to enhance the legislation relating to dog behaviour. The extension to private property, for example, addresses the fact that 70% of dog attacks currently occur on private property. However, there are two areas that I will highlight where the proposals fall short of what, in my opinion and that of the BVA and a number of animal charities, is desirable.

With dog-related aggression, our key objectives should be to prevent apprehension, injury or death. It is little comfort after a serious dog attack to know that one can prosecute the owner. There is a view widely held by those most interested in this subject that low-threshold, prophylactic intervention, as provided by dog control notices, would specifically and more effectively prevent problems than the proposed generic community protection notices, which would be served after problems of a “persistent or continuing nature”. Dog control notices can be used in a constructive way as improvement notices and of course they have been adopted in the Scottish legislation on the control of dogs in 2010. Moreover, community protection notices relate to various non-specific threats and the seizure of a dog, for example, requires rather more specific knowledge and experience than the seizure of some inanimate object. I do, however, appreciate that dog control notices require dedicated, trained personnel to serve and enforce them effectively.

There is a second area where I feel that the Bill falls short of the desirable, for while it extends protection beyond humans to assistance dogs, it stops there. There are countless cases of serious injury to animals as a result of unprovoked dog attacks. A vet practitioner whom I was speaking to recently recounted how in his Lancashire practice alone they had seen four or five dogs which had been “shredded” by dogs this year. Indeed, one had died. Bearing in mind that there are some 4,500 practices in the UK, while we have no accurate statistics of non-human injury, aggression against other animal species, with the attendant distress that causes to the owners, certainly is a considerable problem. Moreover, it is important to note that it is likely that the owners who allow aggressive behaviour against other animals will also be irresponsible with respect to protecting humans. So action against dog-on-dog or other animal attacks arguably is a constructive measure that could reduce and prevent injury and distress to humans.

In conclusion, I welcome a number of measures in this Bill, but feel that there is an opportunity to go a little further to ensure adequate protection of humans as well as safeguarding animal health.