Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.