Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to speak to my own Bill. It has its origins in the topics to be considered on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but for a variety of reasons, which I expect we may go into again on Third Reading, this is now a single-issue Bill. I also rise to speak to the amendments.

In Committee, there was considerable discussion on what penalties would be deemed appropriate. One concern I had—I tabled my own amendment—was simply to ensure that we were not in a situation where the penalties could in any way be less than what had been intended in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. There was no question of that in many ways because the penalty in the original 1953 Act was so small, but it did allow a situation to emerge where there was an increase in penalties or fines against owners of dogs if there had been repeat offences. That is what I sought to discuss with hon. Members, the Minister and officials, to ensure that that was not the case. I was delighted that the Government agreed with that principle and that officials were able to come forward with a different amendment, which I am delighted to be moving today.

Amendment 2 is the substantive amendment—amendment 1 is consequential to it—and if the House agrees to it, the person who commits an offence under the section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine. There is no limit on that fine; it is an unlimited penalty. This has become a trend in legislation in recent times. That matters because Parliament is not putting in place a cap on what can be done. The flexibility that we can give to the courts is an important way of tackling unacceptable behaviour, such as effectively neglecting the conduct of a dog so that it attacks other animals.

I would still expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidelines regarding what will be appropriate, but in Committee it was deemed important to ensure that we reinstate that element of ensuring there could be an escalation, and not some arbitrary cap where Parliament decides once and for all on what the fine could be, depending on the severity of the offence. In Committee we heard of multiple situations involving either one ewe or lamb, or indeed several. As a consequence, I think it right to allow our courts discretion to adjust the fines accordingly, in line with what the public would expect.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this Bill, which I fully support. Will she briefly give a summary of the Bill for those Members who might not have been following its passage as closely as I have?

[Dr Coffey]

I would be happy to do that, but I think Mr Deputy Speaker might say that is out of order while we are discussing specific amendments. I will make sure that I do that on Third Reading, if my hon. Friend is amenable to that. I am also hoping to get leeway from Mr Deputy Speaker to talk about amendments that we did not table.

Another significant discussion in Committee was about disqualification orders, whether we should be able to apply those, and what legislation was available to do that. The Minister and I both committed to look into the issue further, which we did, and there is a variety of other legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relates to this sort of activity. I am grateful to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer) who responded to members of the Committee who wanted to go further, and discussed why that was not the case.

As I indicated in Committee, I understood that powers were available to undertake such actions, but not specifically in this Bill. I do not know whether that has been shared with the House, but depending on the procedures that are allowed, I would be happy to ask for such information to be placed in the Library of the House. In essence, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 sets out a non-exhaustive definition of when a dog is to be regarded as dangerously out of control, and if necessary a prosecution could be brought under that Act, instead of the Bill. Further legislation even dates back to the Dogs Act 1871, regarding when a magistrates’ court can make a control or destruction order if it appears to the court that the dog is dangerous and not under control. A disqualification order can also be made if the court has decided to make an order for the destruction of a dog by virtue of legislation. That will, I hope, answer some of the questions that I have received from members of the public regarding why certain powers are not specifically included in the Bill.

Although it can be understandably tricky to navigate our legislation, political parties such as the Liberal Democrats seem to excel in ignoring legislation and trying to create it and then accuse others of not doing something when something is already a criminal offence. I want to ensure that it is on the record that we are not ignoring the opportunity for people to be refused the opportunity to own dogs in the future, if they are simply being irresponsible in allowing this sort of attack, it is just that it will not be covered specifically in the Bill. We have basically allowed unlimited penalties to be applied. I think that is good news for aspects of animal welfare, and it will, I hope, be a significant deterrent to people, and encourage them to be more careful with their dogs—we will get into that on Third Reading and discuss why we are doing this at all. The Bill will add strength so that we see a massive reduction in livestock worrying.