Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I apologise to the House, but my vocal cords will support only a short speech and I will need to decline interventions. Livestock worrying is an issue of significant concern for farmers and rural communities. It causes much distress and cost to animals and farmers. It is already an offence through the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but the police have sought greater powers to more effectively detect and enable the prosecution of such offences.

The Bill provides for the inclusion of attacks as well as worrying as offences. It extends the area covered beyond the land to a road or path, in order to address attacks where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides the powers of entry and search through warrant and allows dogs to be detained to avoid further attacks while an owner is awaiting trial for such an offence. It allows for more modern ways to gather evidence from a dog, including taking dental impressions and other relevant samples, and updates the fines that can be imposed. The Bill will include camelids—alpacas and llamas—in the definition of livestock for the purposes of the 1953 Act.

In keeping this speech short, I am conscious that I have not been able to answer several of the questions that people inside and outside the House may have on why this or that specific issue is not covered in the Bill—or at least not yet. I know that the Minister has a good briefing pack and may cover some of those points. However, I want to thank various groups, including the National Farmers Union, for their support of the Bill.

When the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was set aside and the Government explained at the time why that was, I pledged to the House that the Government would support our manifesto commitments in that Bill to be enacted through single-issue Bills. That is now happening, including through this Bill. We want to see an effective deterrent to this kind of harm to livestock, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. I certainly hope to speak to it more in Committee. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken today. We have seen from their constituency examples why this update to the legislation is needed. I thank the Government for their support. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I thank the officials and my parliamentary team, who have taken the Bill this far. I hope we can get it swiftly through the House to ensure that for farmers, rural communities and the animals themselves, that deterrent effect will be in place. It is much needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.

Amendment 1, in the schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out from “conviction” to end of line 30 and insert—

“(a) except in a case falling within paragraph (b) below, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale,

(b) in a case where the person in question has previously been convicted of an offence under this Act in respect of the same dog, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

The schedule.

[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 ---

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is quite right that the Bill does not deal with that circumstance. Courts will be given the ability through sentencing guidelines to take into account unlimited fines through an amendment that will be introduced on Report, which the Government have committed to; it would therefore be up to the courts to implement that. He is right to reference the fact that the money from such fines will not then be distributed to the farmer, and it will therefore be up to the farmer who has been impacted negatively by sheep worrying or a sheep attack to seek compensation through civil means rather than through the courts. It is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.

As I said, the Government are wholly in support of the Bill and we will be considering further amendments that will be introduced on Report. The measures are vital in tackling livestock worrying and will greatly strengthen the existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for bringing forward the Bill.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. With a former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, present, I am conscious that the devil will be in the detail on aspects of law. It is my understanding that disqualification from ownership should be possible, certainly in England. It is technically an issue of animal welfare, which is devolved, so there is added complication there. However, I am happy to explore this further with the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that it is still possible to achieve the outcome that he seeks, whether through this legislation or otherwise.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The Dangerous Dogs Act does permit disqualification, so although the Animal Welfare Act considers the welfare of an animal, the Dangerous Dogs Act aims at a different mischief. There seems to be no reason why livestock worrying offences should not be included under the same principle as the Dangerous Dogs Act.

[Dr Coffey]

I commit to my right hon. and learned Friend to go away and work with the Minister and officials on the details of that particular issue. It was my understanding that there were other legal powers available for the outcomes that he seeks, but if that is not the case—he has expressed some concern about the level of detail—we should look to rectify that in future.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The fact that disqualification was brought forward in the kept animals Bill suggests that this Bill was the appropriate place for it.

[Dr Coffey]

The then Farming Minister did give an explanation when the kept animals Bill was paused. That Bill covered many issues, which have already been covered in private Members’ Bills and Government Bills in a number of different ways. Those issues have been broken up to try to ensure that the Bills are passed without all the extra things that people had been talking about. This is nothing to do with party political management; I remind the Committee that at one point in the kept animals Bill, we were starting to consider how to hold a chicken—quite far off topic from its original purpose. This Bill tries to simplify matters. I recognise that the hon. Member for Cambridge may have a different perspective on that, but I will stick to what I believe to be the case.

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, as has been said, the Bill extends to agricultural land, which is perceived to have its natural meaning. It is not intended to cover the Fenton situation, although what happened there was unfortunate. We have to bear in mind that quite a lot of what we are dealing with is negligence by owners, rather than criminal intent. We are not getting into the situation of deliberately releasing animals to attack other animals. At the moment, I do not think it would cover a foreshore, but I do not have the precise legal definition. It basically covers bare land that would be used for agriculture. That is pretty comprehensive and certainly should cover the common land that the hon. Member for Neath referred to.

I am mindful of the questions that have been raised today, some of which, as I hope Committee members recognise, will be taken away to see whether further strengthening is needed. I am happy to meet Committee members, but I will also write to let them know about some of the questions that have been raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 10, leave out

“clarify the penalty that applies”

and insert—

“increase the penalty that may be imposed”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out—

“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

This amendment increases the fine that can be imposed on a person convicted of the livestock worrying offence. It allows for an unlimited fine to be imposed.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

It is a pleasure to speak on what I consider to be a very important Bill. Not only is it important to many countryside lovers, but it has been very much supported by the National Farmers Union and the National Sheep Association, and it will play an important role in strengthening our legislation to deter livestock worrying. I must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her dogged support for the legislation, and those on the shadow Benches for their support; I know the Bill is fully supported.

While I have a farming-linked remit within DEFRA, I am also the access Minister, and the legislation is important in terms of access to the countryside, as well because it will give added awareness to people who are going out with dogs. We are encouraging people into the countryside for many reasons—the health and wellbeing benefits and all that—but, as the shadow Minister mentioned, we need to raise awareness of the countryside code. Taking one’s dog out into the countryside is a wonderful thing, but respect and understanding must be given to the farming community and to all the responsibilities that lie therein for dog owners walking their dogs. This is important legislation and it will help.

I will speak briefly to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. She has listened very carefully to the comments in Committee, which is why she has tabled these amendments. They seem to make complete sense and I know they have had a great deal of support. She wants to be sure, as do others, that the courts have the appropriate discretion to impose a higher fine where it is warranted. The current maximum fine that might be imposed is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000; increasing the maximum fine to an unlimited amount would serve to provide an additional deterrent and help to reduce the likelihood of livestock worrying.

My hon. Friend for the Minister for Water and Rural Growth committed to supporting this amendment in Committee, and I reconfirm that support today. Just to clarify, as was mentioned in the Committee, the maximum fine available will be determined by this legislation and will not depend on the sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, in fulfilment of its statutory duty. As an independent body, the council decides its own priorities and work plan for reviewing guidelines to reflect any legislative changes.

A comment was made about dogs on leads, which I know was discussed in Committee. The 1953 Act does not make it mandatory for a dog to be kept on a lead around livestock, although a person does commit an offence under the Act if the dog attacks or worries livestock on agricultural land. I am pleased to say that the offence includes roads and paths nearby. However, there are often signs stipulating when to put a dog on a lead or where it would be helpful to do so, for example, if there is livestock in the field or in particular where there are cows with calves.

I personally would not go into a field where there were cows with calves, because a cow with a calf attacked me when I was a child, but that is a decision for people to make. If a dog owner keeps their dog on a lead, that can sometimes attract cattle to the dog, so the Committee’s view, which I support, was that, in certain specific circumstances, there is a risk to the owner of keeping the dog on a lead. I think my right hon. Friend agrees with that; perhaps she will add some comments shortly. For those reasons, the Bill is not proposing to go down that road. On that note, I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.

[Dr Coffey]

With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I am aware that, in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, there was a much greater element of rewriting lots of law. I am conscious that this is a private Member’s Bill with five clauses and a schedule that is already reasonably comprehensive. I looked at the issue very carefully and I am satisfied that it is perfectly straightforward to get the control disqualification orders necessary through existing legislation, without needing to legislate further.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the police already have the necessary powers. We will come to the substantial changes in the Bill shortly, but these amendments are about ensuring sufficient financial penalties. Provisions to have a dog destroyed or to disqualify people from owning a dog are already covered. On his point about keeping dogs on leads, there is a variety of situations in which people will have a dog with them. In addition, people can put a dog on a lead but still not be in control of it. Ultimately, that is what this is about.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in the schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out “not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. —(Dr Coffey.)

Third Reading.

[Dr Coffey]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is pleasure to be able to give a short summary of the Bill. The 1953 Act already provides legislation on the subject, but the Bill seeks to make it more straightforward for the police to do their job. In particular, it will allow them to seize dogs to take samples, dental impressions and the like. At the moment, being able to do that relies on the good will of dog owners.

The Bill extends the scope of the provisions, so they do not only apply to a field that a farmer may own where livestock are kept. It recognises that agricultural practices mean that animals are often transferred from one field to another. For example, current legislation does not apply when animals are crossing a road and a dog is out of control, so the Bill extends the scope to cover such situations.

It is important to ensure we have the power of entry. An application to a justice of the peace is still required to get that. The Bill is all about trying to ensure the police have appropriate powers and to make it more straightforward to prosecute the owners of dogs that are not behaving responsibly.

Right hon. Members and hon. Members have rightly talked about what the Bill is really about. It is not about penalising people who want to enjoy the countryside on casual walks, which I fully encourage. It is important for people to have access and awareness of nature and to enjoy the countryside responsibly, but they need to recognise that a living, thriving and working countryside provides many farmers with their livelihoods, which is why livestock need protection.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

A few years ago, I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to the Smithills Estate to plant the first tree in the 15 million tree-strong Northern Forest. One of the key parts of the visit was when children from St Peter’s Smithills Dean Primary School helped to plant those trees. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the importance of education? We want more people from all backgrounds to enjoy the countryside and to know about how to keep livestock safe.

[Dr Coffey]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend, who is right to recognise that. There have been particular concerns since covid that the training of dogs can often be challenging. The NFU and others have led me to believe that dogs left at home can often break out. The owner will not even know anything about an attack or livestock worrying, but the consequences can be significant. It is not simply that a dog will bite or kill a ewe or a calf; it is important to recognise that even just dogs running around can cause ewes and pigs to have abortions and so on.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank her for bringing forward this Bill. She is a true champion of the farming community in Suffolk and across the country, and she talks about the NFU. She will know that it is not just about the individual cases but about the scale of this problem, which I am happy to say does not exist in Southend. The NFU Mutual data shows that the value of claims for dog attacks on farm animals rose to more than £1.8 million in 2022. I did not know before preparing for today’s debate that, as she points out, it is not necessarily about when a dog comes into contact with a sheep. Just having dogs chasing sheep can cause a pregnant ewe to die or miscarry—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions are interventions, not speeches. If she wishes to speak on Third Reading, she will have the opportunity to do so.

[Dr Coffey]

I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think my hon. Friend was getting so passionate about this issue that her intervention may have gone on a little too long, but she is right to point out the financial cost and to say that it is about not simply the attack but potential injury and stress, which can have consequences. She is right to highlight that.

I recently held a roundtable about this issue in my constituency, and I spoke to farm managers and shepherdesses about the situation. Members may know that, without any consequences, a farmer or landowner may shoot a dog that is causing worrying, although often farmers do not want to go around shooting other people’s dogs. Indeed, beyond the impact that it would have on them, not all farmers are licensed to do that, which is the situation in which some of the people at my meeting find themselves. They simply want people to have better control of their dogs, which does not necessarily mean that dogs should be on leads. As I have already mentioned in responding to the amendments, dogs can be on leads that are not even attached to the owner. It is control and recall that really matter, but leads are important for people who are unfamiliar with walking in the countryside or who cannot control their dog, for whatever reason. Leads are vital in that regard, and they are a way for us to make sure that people have responsible access to the countryside.

This is the fourth Bill before us today, and I am conscious that those on both Front Benches would like to see further progress on other legislation before the House. I want to thank Tim Pratt, Tilly Abbott, Will Pratt, Ed Hawkins and Heidi Crick, as well as Ella Thackray and Jen Cox from the NFU, who came to speak to me about this issue. I have had multiple representations from right around the country. This Bill extends to both England and Wales, in line with the original 1953 Act, but other legislation is already in place in Northern Ireland and Scotland, where different legal systems have evolved over the years. I believe that this Bill is a straightforward way to make sure that we help our farmers, whose primary role is to grow food to put on our plates and should not be about worrying—literally—about other people’s animals worrying their livestock.

The measures in this Bill were originally included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am pleased to say that we are starting to see other elements of that proposed legislation going through. Just this week, the ban on live exports received Royal Assent, and there have been regulations on other aspects of that issue. It was explained at the time why the Bill was split up, but I am pleased to have played a part and to have fulfilled my commitment to get this legislation through the House.

I am very grateful to our Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has given excellent guidance along the way. I really want to thank the officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the Ministers and the shadow Ministers. I also thank my team, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who have helped through the usual channels to progress this piece of legislation, which I think will be welcomed across the House. Once it gets through the Lords, it is intended that the Act will commence automatically—three months after Royal Assent, I think —so that it is well in place in 2025. I thank Mr Deputy Speaker and colleagues who have spoken in today’s debate, as well.