Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

James Daly Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

The next two Members who wish to speak are James Daly, followed by Ben Lake.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Q Thank you very much, Ms McVey. Can I ask some questions about the specifics of the Bill—clause 27 onwards in part 2 —regarding the seizure and retention of dogs? Can you give me your views on that? Clause 27(1) says that if

“a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or a road or a path…The constable may seize the dog”.

There is some more wording, but what is clear from subsection (3) is that the owner of the dog in those circumstances has seven days to reclaim it. There is a suggestion that at the end of that period, if it is not reclaimed one of the options open to the police is the destruction of that dog. Is that your understanding of the position?

Rob Taylor: No, it is not. My understanding is that the dog could be rehomed or passed on to someone else. It is not destruction—that is not my understanding.

[James Daly]

Q And the police will be in a position to find a home within seven days for dogs?

Rob Taylor: The dog will be placed in the care of a dogs home, then it will be up for relocation to a suitable home. The problem that we have at present is that we seize a dog, and as soon as the owner turns up we have to give it back. Otherwise, we seize a dog and are stuck with it until whenever, and it is a really difficult one.

[James Daly]

Q There is a potential contradiction in the Bill regarding the situation that I have just read out, where a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has taken place, and the dog can be collected after seven days. Then we go on to clause 27(8), which says:

“The constable may seize the dog and detain it—

(a) until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 26 has been committed by reason of the dog attacking or worrying livestock, or

(b) if proceedings are brought in respect of such an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”

Effectively, that means that we have one situation where there is seven days and another situation under clause 27(8) where the dog can be kept until the end of criminal proceedings. What is the difference between the two? Is it that under clause 27(8) the person has been charged with the offence and the dog will then be kept potentially on an indefinite basis, compared with the seven days I just referred to?

Rob Taylor: I would have to read through it again in detail, but I think part 2 relates to the risk that the dog is going to reoffend. I would need to read through it again to make sure, but from the meetings I have been in that is the belief I have. We see time and again that a dog will offend, be taken back by the owner and then at the scene, and the next day go out and kill three or four sheep. The next day it does exactly the same again. My belief is that the power there is for detaining the dog until the case is completed.

[James Daly]

Q Okay. You can see the difference between what constitutes a decision for seven days and what constitutes a decision for what would potentially be a very lengthy period of time. I have to go on. I am from a criminal law background and have dealt with many cases in this area. Realistically, where we are now, you could have a case that was disputed and could go on for over 12 months. You would accept that?

Rob Taylor: Absolutely.

[James Daly]

Q So what happens to the dog for that length of time?

Rob Taylor: It would be kept in kennels until such a time.

[James Daly]

Q How would we as a Committee be confident that the dog’s welfare needs would be met after such a long time in kennels?

Rob Taylor: The dog would be kept in kennels and would be fed and watered properly, as other dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are. The first situation applies when the dog owner is not known. The second applies when the dog owner is known. The dog could be kept to prevent it from reoffending again. Over the last 15 years I have been dealing with dog offences, I would say that that power has probably been used once or twice. It is an extremely rare situation.

[James Daly]

Q A witness who gave evidence this morning said that there are examples from Scotland of dogs being kept for three or four years.

Rob Taylor: I have never come across that.

[James Daly]

Q My final question is on the power of disqualification, which I assume you fully understand. People obviously can have more than one dog, so there may be a situation where one dog is responsible for an act that has led to the owner being convicted of a criminal offence. A disqualification order would suggest that other dogs in the home can then be seized, even though they have not been responsible for any potential criminal behaviour. Is that correct?

Rob Taylor: Absolutely. Court orders are given many times for people who commit offences against badgers or other similar offences of cruelty. They are given a banning order, which prevents them from keeping dogs. It is for them to actually dispose of the dogs or they commit a further offence of being in possession of a dog while subject to a court order.

[James Daly]

Q I understand that, and I appreciate the point you are making. Clause 33(4) says:

“Any dog taken into possession in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) or (2)”—

which is the disqualification order—

“that is not owned by the person subject to the disqualification order is to be dealt with in such manner as an appropriate court may order.”

That covers a number of different circumstances. I am concerned that dogs that have not acted in an inappropriate manner, shall we say, are potentially going to be disposed of and destroyed. That seems remarkably unfair.

Rob Taylor: No, absolutely. We see it time and again with wildlife offences and other such offences. If you are subject to a disqualification order, it is your responsibility to dispose of those dogs, whether by rehoming them, giving them to somebody else or making sure that they are given to a dogs home. You cannot possess those dogs. Previously in my evidence I said that the problem we have is not with the dogs. It is about irresponsible dog ownership. You could have a great dog, but if the owner is a bad owner, they are going to continue to commit these offences. This is exactly the same. I am aware of numerous people in north Wales who are banned from keeping animals. There are numerous people throughout the UK who are banned from keeping animals, and quite rightly so. They are irresponsible and they treat animals in an appalling manner.

[James Daly]

Q I have one final brief question. We clearly do not want to be in a situation where, if a disqualification order is made, the person convicted of a criminal offence is given responsibility for rehoming a dog. That seems ridiculous, but that is what you are suggesting would happen.

Rob Taylor: I do not see an issue with that.

[James Daly]

Q So you do not see it as the responsibility of the police or somebody else to rehome a dog in an appropriate way when it has been taken, to ensure that its welfare is maintained?

Rob Taylor: If people are caught hare coursing or badger baiting and they have a disqualification put on them, it is their responsibility to rehome the dog and move it on; otherwise, they commit further offences. It is as simple as that. The two choices we have here are that we actually do that or we let the person commit an offence, such as the 100 sheep killed in Kent a few years ago. That person might go out and buy five Alsatians the next day. Where does it stop? There has to be a point at which that person is recognised as an irresponsible dog owner and not fit to keep dogs.

[James Daly]

Q There is no dispute regarding disqualification from future purchase. What I am concerned about is the dog that is already under the ownership of a person and what happens to that dog, which has done nothing wrong whatsoever.

Rob Taylor: But that dog has done nothing wrong whatsoever up until that point. Dogs have a natural instinct to chase and attack. If the person’s dog that has committed the offence is no longer being walked, that person is walking his two whippets, Jack Russells or Yorkshire terriers and is irresponsible. That person remains irresponsible and that dog, once it attacks, will have a natural ability to chase. If the person decides to walk his dogs through a field without a lead or suitable responsibility, they will commit an offence and we are back to square one. We then have to get a disqualification order for the dog, which gets disqualified, and we carry on disqualifying that person, who could then have 20 dogs. We would spend 20 years trying to get that person not to be able to take their dog for a walk.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you very much; that is very helpful.

[James Daly]

Q Hi Rob. I have just looked on your organisation’s website. Your organisation advises the Government on important dog and cat health and welfare issues and standards. Is that correct?

Rob Quest: Yes, the Canine and Feline Sector Group is made up of a wide range of organisations, such as Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, which you have already heard from, and the British Veterinary Association.

[James Daly]

Q If the state is detaining an animal in kennels, for whatever reason, for a lengthy period of time—potentially up to 12 months, or longer—would you advise the Government or have any views as to the welfare issues for that animal, which will almost exclusively be a dog, in respect of the legislation?

Rob Quest: Overall, animals in kennels under long-term official control are usually under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, rather than this legislation, but we would always advise that dogs should be in kennels for the absolute minimum amount of time. The sooner we can get them out of kennels and put in a proper home, the better.

[James Daly]

Q But where there is no other option, if a dog is detained by the police or any authority, perhaps for very good reason, are there any facilities other than kennels where it can be looked after for a lengthy period of time? I am asking in complete ignorance, so please forgive me.

Rob Quest: No, if a dog is not compliant on import it would have to go into one of the authorised quarantine kennels. The maximum time in those kennels to make a dog compliant is currently four months, and then it can come out. The minimum time is generally 21 days, but it may be less, depending on what subsequent paperwork turns up regarding that non-compliance.

[James Daly]

Thank you very much.

[Dr Hudson]

Q Rob, I noted your comment that, sadly, you have noticed an increasing number of dogs with cropped ears coming through Heathrow, which really rams home the importance of visual checks. The legislation aims to reduce the movement of animals that have been mutilated, so I wanted to ask if you have seen a similar increase in the number of cats coming in with their claws removed. That will be much harder to detect visually than a Dobermann with cropped ears. Have you picked up on that at all? We need to ensure that cats that have been mutilated are covered by the legislation as well.

Rob Quest: No, we have not, but that might because, as you say, it is much more difficult to know if a cat’s claws have been taken out. We have not noticed that, but it is certainly something we could look for in future. As you say, it is very easy to see if a dog’s ears have been cropped when they are taken out of the container. We have not seen anything like cropped claws. I imagine that would be mostly from the States, because that is quite routine practice there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Thank you. I think we have answered the “lead or no lead” question.

[James Daly]

Q In Scottish law, is there an offence similar to what we are talking about where a dog attacks or worries livestock?

Mike Flynn: Yes. It was in the original 1953 Act. The Member’s Bill that Emma Harper put through last year updated it to include a wider definition of livestock—ostriches, llamas and all that kind of stuff—and to increase the penalties up to 12 months’ imprisonment and a £40,000 fine.

[James Daly]

Q One witness who has given evidence stated that in certain cases that are proceeding or have proceeded through the Scottish courts, dogs are kept in kennels for long periods—we were given one example of up to four years—while legal proceedings are ongoing. Do you have anything you can say in respect of how dogs’ welfare is maintained while legal proceedings are ongoing?

Mike Flynn: The case that Paula referred to earlier of a spaniel did take just under four years to conclude in court, because it kept getting postponed, for various reasons. Thankfully, the law in Scotland has recently changed—as recently as a month ago. Up until then, in any case that we took—because we are a reporting agency to the Crown Office, authorised by the Scottish Minister—we had to keep the animal as a production if the person refused to sign it over, until the conclusion of the criminal case. It was that or we had to take a civil case against them, which could cost up to £60,000. So that led to animals being kept in our kennels. We have the best staff and best kennels in the world, but it is not welfare friendly to keep a young dog, which is a two-year-old adult by the time it gets out of there. The law has recently changed the emphasis: animals that are seized in certain circumstances can now be disposed of after a three-week period. We have to issue a decision notice on the person, stating our intention is to dispose of the animal. “Dispose” does not mean destroy; we can rehome it, but it can be put down on veterinary advice. The person can appeal that decision, but that would be very, very unlikely.

This was originally designed for the big puppy farming cases, because we have had cases where—well, the biggest that I think we had was one where we seized 109 dogs, and they were in our care for just under 18 months. First, it is very bad for animal welfare; secondly, it is a horrendous cost to a charity, because we never get that money back. I think the biggest cost we have had was from a case with 58 dogs that had been in for 23 months. It works out at £15 per dog per day—that cost us £440,000.

There is a compensation element. W have to notify the person in the event that they lose the case or the sheriff decides otherwise. They are compensated for the current value when the animal was seized. In that individual case, the maximum compensation would have been £25,000, so we would have saved £415,000 and protected animal welfare.

[James Daly]

Q Indeed, and I think you are highlighting the problem where an offender or somebody who has been involved in this behaviour is on state benefit; they may be asked to repay the debt at £5 per week. Is that right?

Mike Flynn: Well, there is provision to recover reasonable costs, but sometimes the people that we deal with—I am sure the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals experiences the same—have no financial means. Where is the punishment in £5 a week for the rest of their life or something like that? If the animals are signed over, or with the new provision, we can get them into loving new homes a lot quicker and then it does not matter how long it takes for the criminal proceedings to commence. If Westminster has any power, I am sure the RSPCA would love you to introduce something similar down there.

[James Daly]

Thank you very much.

[Dr Hudson]

Q Thank you, Mike, for appearing before us today. I was very encouraged by your response to the Minister about the importance of the devolved nations working together on this important legislation. In your answer, you said that it has to be joined up; otherwise there will be loopholes. Can you give us examples in, perhaps, previous legislation where loopholes have opened up and where that has adversely impacted on animal welfare? I am specifically thinking of things like Lucy’s law and third party sales. Have you experience of that in the United Kingdom where there have been discrepancies in different parts of the UK and it has had adverse animal welfare impacts inadvertently?

Mike Flynn: There must be several examples, but one that springs to mind is that until about nine years ago, when a consequential amendment to sentencing powers was brought in, somebody banned in England was not banned in Scotland. It was not UK-wide until that amendment came in, so people from Manchester and Liverpool who were banned were moving up to Scotland and evading the ban—I am sure there would be Scottish people doing the same. But the amendment closed that, so if people are banned in England and Wales, they are also banned in Scotland, and vice versa. So you have things like that.

Lucy’s law has been widely talked about, but there are loopholes in that. Somebody can say, “I bred it myself.” People who bring in pregnant bitches did not breed the dog, but they hand the bitch over when it gives birth. Let us be honest: a lot of the people we deal with are out-and-out criminals. I am talking about the puppy trade. They just use puppies as a commodity, and if they can find a loophole, whether it is through England, Wales or Scotland, they will find it and use it because the profits are so huge.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Grundy]

That is incredibly helpful. Thank you very much.

[James Daly]

Q Dr Wright, thank you very much for your evidence, which has been very helpful indeed. One issue is that if the vast majority of attacks on livestock come from animals that are in somebody’s back garden or that escape from some form of premises, there are obviously some legal difficulties in respect of that, because no Bill will ever be able to say that someone must have a fence that is 6 foot tall, 7 foot tall or whatever. What is your feeling about that? I think you would probably accept, Dr Wright, that we cannot ever produce legislation that will be specific enough to cover every possible eventuality. One of the things that we are talking about is criminalising the behaviour of people who do not know that their animals are potentially attacking sheep. You can commit a criminal offence, even though you did not know that you were doing so. Then the definition of “irresponsibility” becomes very difficult when a dog is in somebody’s back yard. Do you have any views on that?

Dr Wright: We have had a lot of conversations with members about how things happen with livestock worrying after the horse bolted, because, in effect, you are trying to find the culprit of an attack that has already happened. I do not think that we will ever get to a situation whereby we can prevent every single attack—that is absolutely correct. I am hoping that the Bill will increase the seriousness of the offence, so that people understand that even if they are not present at the time and there are no witnesses, a police officer could knock at the door with a warrant, take a DNA sample from the dog and compare it with DNA collected at a crime scene. You do not have to have been around at the time of the offence.

I am hoping that intelligence within communities will help as well. When you do not legitimise something and say that it is just one of those things, when legislation comes in and says, “Actually, we’re taking this seriously, because this is a very important issue,” the fines, the powers for police, the enforcement and the investigation display our strength with this and how important we feel it is, and that will feed back to communities where there have been problems and help the police in their ability to do something about it. In some respects, I know it is after the horses have bolted, but I am hoping we can close the door to stop any more horses escaping. That is the analogy I give to farmers, because as you say, you would never solve it 100% of the time. What we need to get to is that when dog owners are thinking about their dogs, they understand that there are serious consequences to this.

There is a responsibility on industry to communicate that as well. I happen to sit on the Animal Welfare Network Wales, which has a lot of animal charities on it as well, and I have been using their groups to disseminate to their members—the people who would not necessarily speak to the union but would speak to, say, other animal charities about how to look after their dogs. So there are ways and means to get the intelligence out there to those people who maybe would not have known about it before. As you say, we are not going to get everyone, but I am hoping that by committing what we have done so far to it we can potentially stop future attacks.

[James Daly]

Thank you, Dr Wright; that is very helpful indeed.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Q Thank you, Dr Wright. Nice to see you. I just want to play devil’s advocate on a quick question. We have heard a lot about animals that escape and they tend to carry out the vast majority of the attacks. Is there any leverage—again, this is me definitely playing devil’s advocate—in farmers and landowners constantly updating the signage on their gates and fences? If you live in the same area and there is always a livestock grazing sign on the same field and you know that three quarters of the year there is not anything in there at all, people become complacent about walking their dogs and will let them off, not necessarily knowing that the livestock might be over the brow of the hill. Would your members be open to doing something like that if you think it might help? Is that something you think we should be writing into the Bill, or that just gets out because it is good practice?

Dr Wright: It is interesting, because we provide signs for members but we have been constrained by what we can and cannot say legally, because we cannot say that dogs must be kept on a lead near livestock. What we say is, “Please keep your dog on a lead” near livestock at the moment. I am hoping, with the Bill, assuming that I get the change that I would like to see, which is that they must be on a lead and not just with this arbitrary “proper control” definition, that members can put more enforcing signs up that are a bit more important than the ones they put up before. When a dog walker sees a sign that says, “Please keep your dog on a lead”, it is quite gentle, is it not? If the sign says, “It is a legal requirement for your dog to be on a lead in this field”, it is a different conversation. I would like a farmer to be able to do that. Without the Bill allowing them to do that, you put them in a position where they are still having to just be polite, and I would like them to be backed up by legislation to do that.