Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Ben Lake and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 39, page 23, line 12, at beginning insert

“where keeping a dog on a lead of 1.8 metres or less would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog,”.

This amendment would broaden the definition of “at large” dogs, by requiring non-exempt dogs in fields with relevant livestock present to be on a lead to be deemed under control unless keeping the dog on a lead poses a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.

During the evidence sessions on the Bill, much of the debate on this topic came down to whether a dog should be on a lead or not, and we heard many people give their view on that question. As we understand it, the position in the Bill is that it is acceptable for a dog to be in a field with livestock without a lead as long as the owner is aware of its actions and reasonably confident that the dog will return to the person on command. We heard a number of people discussing that, and I think many of us feel that that is not always likely to be the situation. Certainly, the majority of wildlife organisations feel that it is time to make a change here. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, the Canine and Feline Sector Group and many more have come out in support of a provision that would require dogs to be on leads when in a field that contains livestock.

Ultimately, dogs on leads are not in a position to run off from their owners and attack livestock, so, in my view, keeping them on a lead protects farm animals. That seems fairly straightforward to me. I appreciate that there may be more complexity, but that is the basic proposition. Given the serious financial and mental hardship that livestock worrying has been causing farmers, the need for someone to keep their dog on a lead does not seem to me to be a major sacrifice.

This was probably the issue that came up most in the evidence sessions. So far as I recall, most witnesses wanted dogs to be on a lead, and we agree. We recognise that near cattle, there is a risk to human life should the person with the dog not be able to release it swiftly. However, by my reading—I am willing to be corrected—clause 39(4) defines the relevant livestock for those purposes as

“poultry, enclosed gamebirds or sheep.”

The memo to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is helpful, referring on page 6 to the relevant livestock:

“It covers animals that will respond to being scared by a dog by running and clumping together, which can result in these animals getting trampled and smothered, sometimes leading to fatalities.”

While keeping the dog on a lead may not stop that altogether, I cannot help thinking that it would help.

When preparing for the Bill, Baroness Hayman—who worked on Labour’s 2019 animal welfare manifesto, and who is a guiding light for us—told me that requiring dogs to be kept on leads could, in some instances, result in harm to the dog owner. Most notably, if a dog on a lead attacks a herd of cows, they may decide to protect themselves by attacking the dog. When a dog is off the lead, it can run away fast enough to avoid danger.

I think that the Government have solved the problem. Amendment 89 strikes the right balance between the two issues. It requires dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in fields where the relevant livestock are present, except in instances where doing so would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Last week, we heard quite a bit of convincing evidence on the need to curtail and clarify the definitions in this regard. Mr Rob Taylor from the police force explained that although the Bill, as worded, might not necessarily cause a problem for the prosecution or investigation of such crimes under the Bill, such clarifications might help public understanding—so that people know, when walking in the countryside where there are livestock in the fields, that they need to keep their dog on a lead.

Furthermore, we heard from both the National Farmers Union and Dr Hazel Wright of the Farmers Union of Wales that such clarifications would perhaps embolden farmers to look at their signage and keep it current. Dr Wright mentioned that, as the law stands, farmers do not always feel encouraged or, indeed, incentivised to keep signage up to date, especially when it pertains to whether livestock are present in a particular field. Her argument was very convincing: if we were to clarify and strengthen the law so that it is clear when a dog needs to be kept on a lead, farmers would react positively and make the effort to keep their signage current and up to date. That would benefit those wishing to enjoy the countryside and be in the interests of farmers.

Representing a rural constituency, I have sadly had to see many photographs of the consequences of a dog attack. If we were able to clarify the law in this regard, it would not only greatly benefit farmers, but improve public understanding. Ultimately, that is the only real way to tackle and reduce instances of dog attacks. I again place on record my support for amendment 89.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I thought that the evidence we were given was pretty overwhelming. I think the concern that a number of people have expressed to us about the potential danger with cattle has been dealt with by the Government themselves in their definition of relevant livestock. I was grateful for the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s expertise and knowledge, and his point about the signage—which was strongly made in the evidence session—was well made.

I suggest to the Minister that people of my generation, and possibly hers, grew up with many of the promotions about the countryside code and so on. It was drummed into people, but I am not convinced that younger generations have got that message in quite the same way. Sometimes, when I see accounts of some offences by younger people, I am struck by the fact that what would seem obvious to me does not seem obvious to them. One of the most difficult things for a person to do is to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Particularly during lockdown, people went out with dogs for the first time, and we know that on a whole range of issues—not just livestock worrying—people behaved in ways that were challenging to many of the authorities.

[Ben Lake]

In support of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, one of the most surprising aspects of lockdown was how few people understood that they needed to close gates, which can cause a whole host of issues, both for the farmer and for the local communities that find a herd of cows or a flock of sheep going down the road. Those of us who are well versed in the countryside perhaps have a higher sensitivity to things such as the countryside code, but the younger generation and also, perhaps, those visiting or enjoying the countryside for the first time would respond with a very bemused expression if the countryside code was ever raised with them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Listening to his comments, I realise that I am in danger of stigmatising younger people. I do not think it is their fault at all. It is partly because we have moved away from some of the public health and public information campaigns that we used to have.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Ben Lake and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.