Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[James Daly]

Thank you.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Q I also want to ask Mr Taylor a few questions, sticking to part 2 of the Bill, specifically clause 39, on the meaning of “worrying livestock”. We heard in evidence this morning from both the Blue Cross and the RSPCA that there are some concerns that the definition of a dog “at large” is far too broad and that it could have unintended consequences. I am interested to know whether you share any concerns about clause 39(3)(b), which elaborates that a dog is “at large” unless it is

“within sight of a person and the person—

(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and

(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.”

Do you think that this may have unintended consequences for your ability to enforce to the law?

Rob Taylor: No, not at all. It needs to be clarified here that an act that takes somebody to court is the upper echelon. I can see five phases with regards to a livestock attack. If a dog is at large in a field or is loose beyond the control of the handler and no sheep have been chased or worried, that would be a word of advice or a lead letter, which is a standard letter that we send off. If there is an attack where a dog is chased, it moves up to a community resolution, whereby we can impose things such as the dog owner having to have control. It is a bit like a yellow card in a football match. It can then move up to a caution, then it moves up again to a prosecution. The prosecutions and destruction orders tend to be the ones that are repeat offences or where the dog handler is irresponsible from day one. That is a decision for the police managers, such as me, to make.

There are five phases. It does not mean that every single offence would go straight in at level 5 and that we would prosecute; there are various ways we deal with this. The problem we have is that the people who are at level 5, who are irresponsible and keep committing the same offences, keep buying dogs and keep going out and letting their dogs attack sheep. The problem we have is at the level 5 area, but I should say level 1 is that we do not take any action. Level 2 would be advice, level 3 would be community resolution, level 4 would be a caution and level 5 would be prosecution and possibly destruction.

Not every prosecution ends in a destruction. That would be a decision for me as to whether there are aggravated features within the offence, such as the dog has done it twice or three time before, it is a continued offence or the number of animals killed is on such a massive scale. For example, 11 cows were chased in Anglesey and had their udders ripped off. They ran across walls, broke all their legs and died—£22,000-worth. In my opinion, that would be a high-scale offence. Sadly, that offender was never caught.

[Ben Lake]

Q On enforcement, there may not be any merit, but do you think that there is any benefit, in terms of public awareness and understanding of owners’ responsibilities, in limiting the definition of “at large” to a dog that is on a lead of a particular length?

Rob Taylor: It would possibly make it simpler.

[Ben Lake]

Q Minette, other witnesses this morning suggested that there is an omission from the Bill, in that there are no provisions to offer compensation to livestock owners when they have suffered a dog attack in this way. I am interested in whether the National Farmers Union has a position on that and whether it would like to see such clauses inserted into the Bill.

Minette Batters: An attack can cost tens of thousands of pounds to that farming business. We feel that it has to be proportionate to the crime committed and at the moment it is not. It is probably not for us to put a figure on it, but it is not proportionate to the crime at the moment.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Q I have a question about the list of exempted dogs in clause 39(2)(b). Do you have a view on whether that list of dogs might be too broad given that it includes

“a working gun dog or a pack of hounds”,

and given their use in the countryside? Rob or Minette?

Minette Batters: I am simply not close enough to the detail. I think it would be an extraordinary situation for a pack of hounds that are hunting by trail anyway to end up in this position, so I cannot see either scenario happening in my opinion.

Rob Taylor: I think that was previously included in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, and it was just left in as it stands. I agree with Minette. I do not think it is contentious and it is quite limited if it were to occur. That is the reason it is in there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Absolutely.

[Ben Lake]

Q Thank you, Mr Flynn, for your evidence. May I take you back to the issue of livestock worrying? I was interested to hear your comments about the Scottish example, and that the wording of the definition in the Scottish Act of a dog under control or at large had, in practice, proven a bit problematic. I have an idea why that may be, but I am keen to hear of your thoughts and experiences on the wording in the Scottish Act.

Mike Flynn: I know that David Bowles from the RSPCA voiced a concern earlier. From my 34 years’ experience—we do not directly deal with this, but we assist the police quite often—I have never known a dog that has attacked or savaged a sheep that has been on a lead in the field with its owner attached to it. It is very rarely intentional. The majority say, “My dog would never do that,” until the day that it does. The dog runs wild. Some people say, “But the sheep was still standing when I got my dog back.” They do not realise that it has aborted about an hour later. From the trauma, they can die of stress an hour after you have regained your dog. If your animal is on a lead, it cannot attack something; it is as simple as that.

[The Chair]

Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, thank you very much indeed for your time.

Examination of Witness

Dr Hazel Wright gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Given what a big issue it is, do you think that the fines and the compensation mechanisms to farmers are sufficient?

Dr Wright: No, I do not, actually. Because there are repeat offences, I feel that the seriousness of this in the past has not reached the critical level to be a deterrent for people. If we want it to be a deterrent and we want it to work, the fines have to be serious. They have to relate to the amount of financial devastation that there has been on farms. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds of losses on some farms—and those losses are just financial, and do not include the other indirect losses with breeding stock, and so on. We have to take it seriously, and the fines should be increased.

[Ben Lake]

Q It is lovely to see you, Dr Wright. I want to come back to the previous questions and the definition of what is under control. You made it very clear that the Bill could be strengthened by omitting the second part of the definition and keeping it to a leash. Do you want to comment further as to whether we should look at the length of the lead? You made it very clear that it should be the case that a dog is under control if it is on a lead. Is there anything further that you want to add on that?

Dr Wright: The length of “1.8 metres or less” seems reasonable. I cannot see a problem with that in and of itself. As you say, the Bill says “under proper control”, which is an arbitrary statement. It depends on the confidence of the dog walker, which may or may not be real-life situation confidence. I think that many people assume that their dog would come back when, actually, in that situation, it would not. It is a lack of understanding. I know I am reiterating what I said before, but it is so important for our membership to get this part right. I do not have a problem with the 1.8 metres, but I think dogs have to be on a lead when near or adjacent to livestock.

[Ben Lake]

Q Two further questions, if I may, Ms McVey. On one hand, we have heard a few people refer to the fact that a great number of the cases of livestock worrying occur when dogs escape their owners or when owners are not aware that their dog has escaped their garden, or wherever it is being kept. Do you have any proposals or ideas as to how the Bill could try to address that set of circumstances? We heard evidence from Mr Rob Taylor, suggesting that the vast majority of dog attacks occur when dogs escape their owners’ control.

Dr Wright: According to the National Police Chiefs Council’s data, that is about 80% of attacks. Obviously, keeping dogs on leads would combat many of those issues.

First, the powers in the Bill for DNA sampling and evidence gathering are essentially crucial for that. Even when dogs are with dog walkers, the attack might not be witnessed and the dog might not be in the field when the farmer approaches it. We need to have a situation where police can gather evidence. Quite often, the police are aware of the dogs in the area that are the likely culprits of an attack because they tend to be repeat offenders.

The other thing we need to look at is mandatory reporting of those attacks, which allows you to look at regional approaches that might be different in different areas. For example, if you have data that says it is dogs escaping from dog walkers in one area, but it is dogs that have escaped from home in another, you can tailor your mitigation measures based on that data. Without data, you waste resources because you use them ineffectively.

The FUW ran a Your Dog, Your Responsibility campaign last year, which asked members of the public if they knew where their dog was when they were not at home. We talked about appropriate boundaries in fencing for those animals because we know, from the data, that 80% of dog attacks occur when the owner is not around. We would not have run that campaign without those data, so we have to start making sure that we record such information in order to adopt regional approaches and, as I say, to have the mitigation measures match where the problems are.

[Ben Lake]

Q I know that the matter of compensation has already been touched on, and you have made it very clear that the financial cost, let alone the emotional trauma that a dog attack can have on a farming business, is significant. Do you have any comments about how we may go about trying to offer some sort of compensation regime? Perhaps you could also comment on the situation regarding the financial cost for a farmer who loses livestock. Is there any way at the moment for them to recoup some of that financial cost?

Dr Wright: You could do it through the civil courts, but that is very onerous and difficult for the farmer. In the past, it has been very difficult to prove which dog was responsible for an attack. I am hoping that the new powers offered to police under the Bill—as opposed to the 1953 Act, which basically left them powerless—will give people more confidence in forces dealing with the attacks, which will bring more farmers forward in order to start proceedings against individuals. I would like to see that it is easy, simple and straightforward, and not expensive, for a farmer to do that. At the moment, farmers are victims of a crime, but they are not being recompensed for that in the way that maybe another victim of a crime would have support.

We need a support network for farmers who have gone through this ordeal. We have 12 regional county officers who provide support to our members. Official and proper support is also needed to deal with the emotional and financial impact, and to signpost farmers to how they go about launching legal proceedings. We should not expect them to take the burden upon themselves, especially at a time when it could be very difficult financially for them.

[Ben Lake]

Diolch; thank you.

[James Grundy]

Q We discussed earlier today the propensity of dogs to potentially commit repeat attacks. Is it your opinion that once a dog has become a sheep killer, it is highly likely to attack and/or kill sheep again?

Dr Wright: Yes, I do think that. I also think that that is part and parcel of poor ownership. We talk about dog attacks, but a lot of this is actually to do with the irresponsible ownership of a dog and how a dog has been allowed to behave in the past. I am certainly not an advocate for saying that every dog that attacks sheep should be destroyed—of course not. Every case has to go on its merits, but given the data that I have seen and the conversations that I have had, it tends to be repeat offenders in many cases.