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.

Agriculture

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

I am very conscious that the transition has been uncomfortable. Although the Conservative Government and Conservative Members have always prioritised, and continue to prioritise, the primary purpose of farmers, which is to put food on our plates, I am also fully aware that one element of SFI is to help farmers to farm sustainably and to be sustainable, and that must be a key element of the transition.

I welcome the fact that there will be 50 new actions this year—the sooner the better, because I am somewhat uncomfortable about the time it is taking for farmers. They are losing guaranteed income that may be used in a variety of ways; often, frankly, to pay rent; in the past, sometimes, as a consequence to subsidise, in effect, rent going to other landowners rather than to the tenant farmers themselves. Although I see the benefit of what we are doing, it is important that the Department and the Rural Payments Agency make every effort to ensure that the transition is as straightforward as possible for farmers.

Last year, only six options were available—an increase on what DEFRA had originally planned—but to improve that, along with the take-up of the greater scheme and the premium from getting the best environmental outcomes of farmers working together, it is vital that the Department analyses what is happening around the country. It was never expected that every single farmer who received BPS would make the transition—they might have chosen not to, recognising some of the extra demands—but I would be grateful if colleagues in the Department looked further at some of the add-on decisions as a consequence of people joining the SFI and a combination of factors. I am thinking of the recent destocking undertaken by Natural England, which led to the Dartmoor review. There was an excellent outcome and I appreciate the work the Government are doing not only to look at Dartmoor, but around the country. My right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench know they cannot make the transition happen without farmers and landowners, and nor would they want to. Nobody should think that the Government are trying to get farmers to stop farming—far from it—but we want to ensure that the impact is positive in both ways.

Thinking through some of the changes ahead, I note that the Liberal Democrats are not voting against the regulations—I hope that will be on their election leaflets—so they will be supporting the change. We need to ensure that the options that are coming through, come through quickly. As the money transitions down and we get a lever from one end to another, there will always be a variation in how much money a year would be spent. I believe that more farmers will be taking up the options and that will lead to an increase in average spending in years to come, so it is still vital that analysis is undertaken.

In my constituency, 305 people are receiving BPS. As of last month, 94 had applied for SFI this year and just 75 had been accepted. That is only about a quarter of the farmers who were receiving BPS who will now get payments this year. I do not know if they will get more money than they had in the past, but it does mean that three quarters are not doing so. What concerns me is that the farmers in my constituency are some of the most environmentally minded of all the farmers in the country, so I am keen for analysis to be undertaken to understand why three quarters of the farmers receiving BPS today are not now applying for SFI. I cannot find that out myself. The RPA refuses—plain blank refuses—to tell me which farmers receive BPS today. I am not interested in that in terms of campaigning; I am genuinely interested in trying to understand, farm by farm, what it is that I can do, as a former Secretary of State and as a Member of Parliament for that constituency, to put forward their case and their understanding. Nationally, the NFU has to put across a broader range of issues. I appreciate that it has made an intervention regarding this statutory instrument for only a small number of recipients. I understand that we need to keep the journey going, but it needs to be done with as much analysis and understanding as possible.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to ensure we try to get this right, and I look forward to further announcements this month. I think back to Thomas Binns, who stood up for upland farmers. He wanted to make that change and was making sure that DEFRA listened. We certainly did listen and we learned. For the first time we went beyond just the income forgone, which had been the traditional EU approach in calculating different figures. Moving to a more market systems basis opens the door to much more private investment. The green finance strategy, alongside this important transition, is a key part of how we make farming sustainable for the future.

On other aspects, can the Minister say a bit more about the stacking of options and whether that is still possible? Again, that is something farmers have asked for and I believe he has listened. We did remove the bureaucracy. They are now called delinked payments. We also stayed ahead of the game and ensured we addressed the key issue of hedgerows, and implemented those regulations, too.

I have one final request to my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. BPS is going and we have the delinked payments, but we need to go beyond those farmers. For example, in my constituency pig farmers never got BPS in the first place—they were not eligible for that support. What are we doing to ensure we open the doors to welcome them into SFI and countryside stewardship? There has to be a conversation, and farmers sell best to farmers. I have to say that the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer) is one of the most eloquent champions I know, both within the Department and out at the county shows and on the farm visits that all Ministers do, but we need to ensure that we bring people with us and make it as straightforward as possible, doing what we can on the maps and doing what we can with the agents, so that people feel they really are part of the journey and part of the solution, and that, most importantly, in farming sustainably they have a sustainable farm themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

I and my officials have been reviewing the applications that have been put forward, and announcements will be coming very soon. The Government are investing £1.3 billion in flood defences, which is more than ever before, and we will continue to ensure that we are better protecting coastal communities.

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

6. How much funding his Department plans to provide for catchment partnerships in the 2024-25 financial year.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)]

One hundred catchment-based approach partnerships are set out in the plan for water. The catchment-based approach is exactly the right one— I agree with the decision taken by my right hon. Friend on that—and is exactly the approach that we are taking. In the financial year, £15,000 is allocated to each catchment for that.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The plan for water is starting to work in relation to community partnerships: next week, the East Suffolk Catchments Partnership will publish the plan for the River Deben. However, could I encourage my right hon. Friend to try to accelerate some of those partnerships, potentially by increasing the funding from £15,000 per partnership to £50,000, so that every single partnership can have a full-time employee to really drive this action forward?

[Steve Barclay]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. What we are doing is twofold. First, we are increasing funding: she will have seen that, yesterday, we announced an uplift of £11.5 million for local community-led projects to improve river catchments. Alongside that, we are looking at some major interventions in catchments, such as on the River Wye, where we allocated £35 million. We are taking a targeted approach to catchment-specific issues; in that catchment, the issue was chicken litter. The phosphate was going into the River Wye, so we are funding anaerobic digesters as a targeted way of taking a catchment approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

We have provided nearly £1.2 million to help local authorities combat fly-tipping, and our grants are focused on hotspots where they have funded around 200 CCTV cameras, plus other infrastructure including fencing, signage and mobile tips. A further £1 million is due to be released shortly, which will help further tackle these hotspots. I pay tribute to Mary, Wendy and all my hon. Friend’s constituents who are getting involved in helping him.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to get your colleagues in. I call Thérèse Coffey.

[Dr Coffey]

The Environment Act 2021 was landmark legislation, and we of course need to think not only locally but globally. One element of that legislation was the introduction of forest risk commodity regulations. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend said what more we can do through our global supply chain measures.

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is right to focus on forest risk commodities: our flagship announcement at COP28 was that we were taking leading action on that. Many who have watched nature documentaries, for example on the orangutans, can see how important that is to particular species. I hope to table legislation on that later this month, but my right hon. Friend is right to focus on its importance.

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.

Pet Abduction Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is making a fair point that if people want help when their dogs have been stolen, they should have them properly chipped in accordance with the regulations. I do not think puppies are included in that. It is important that we think about the pet owners for whom we are trying to get this Bill through. I know that he is not seeking in any way to block it, but these people would almost certainly have complied with the law, and I understand that the amendment would make it far more difficult for the police. While I understand the sentiments, I hope he will not press this to a Division.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will hold my counsel on that until I hear the Minister’s response. If I said now that I agree with the Minister before he has even said anything, I would be closing off an important option. Despite the temptation from my right hon. Friend, I will not do that. She herself has said to me in private that she thinks there is a lot to be said for what I am trying to achieve on microchipping. I have a specific amendment linking microchipping to the text of the Bill. The guidance is perhaps another way of achieving the same objective.

My right hon. Friend reminds me that when the Bill came out of Committee, it was originally put on the list of Bills to be considered without debate on a Friday, on the basis that everything that could have been said about it had already been said and it should now proceed directly to the statute book. It was with wry amusement that I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), the promotor of the Bill, has now taken advantage of the opportunity provided by having a debate on Report to put down her own amendments to the Bill. She could not have done that if her original intention of having the Bill go through all remaining stages on the nod had been implemented. I hope she will thank me for that.

Since the Bill was first produced, the Government have brought forward some important new measures related to microchipping to deal with the problems of the conflicting or complementary microchipping databases. The pet theft taskforce was commissioned to look into these issues of pet abduction, and it strongly recommended that something be done to ensure that there is one consistent database for microchipping that is accessible to vets, the police and local authorities. I was pleased to see that the Government have issued guidance, and that there will potentially be new regulations, on that. When we met, the Minister told me that that will come into force before the end of this year. Hopefully that will make the use of the microchip database easier and reduce the costs of enforcement.

Obviously, the priority that a Bill or an issue has in the House depends largely on the views of right hon. and hon. Members. The Government obviously believe that pet abduction is an important issue, as indeed it is, but we need to keep it in context with the burden on the enforcement authorities of bringing in new laws and, with that, new penalties and essentially new pressure for prosecutions. That is why the guidance will be important.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

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

Often in debates that have had a long genesis and been considered many times in the House, there is that hackneyed phrase: everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. One cannot even use that phrase now, because everyone has said what they need to say many times over. Of course, that is not true in this case, not least because of the Bill tabled and pioneered very ably by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) in the last Session of Parliament. The clear and overwhelming view of this House was that the legislation should go forward. We all know that that Bill was subject to extended delays in the other House—without wishing to cast aspersions, one could almost suggest delaying tactics—and eventually time ran out. I have to say that in this regard, even if in no other, I welcome the postponement of the general election until the autumn, as I hope that will give us more than adequate time, not only for the Bill to go through its stages in this House, but to ensure that the majority in the other place are not frustrated by the few who take a different view of it.

In some ways, what is happening down there is slightly reminiscent of the debate on the House of Lords in the early part of the last century, when the Lords were very much divided between the hedgers and the ditchers—between those who accepted that some reform was necessary and were therefore going to hedge their bets and allow reform to take place, and those who were going to die in the ditch. I hope very much that the hedgers in this case triumph in the other House, so that this matter, which is very important not just to us but to the public, makes progress.

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

About this time last year, on Report, we reached somewhat of a compromise consensus on the Bill that left this place and went to the Lords. Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has reintroduced the exact same Bill on which this House reached consensus last year? The Bill technically does not stop hunting; it simply stops the import into this country of any animal protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a huge pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on promoting this legislation.

Just from looking at the text of the legislation, hon. Members can see quite how complicated it is to amend a variety of bits of law on something we would have hoped would be straightforward. The reason we have got to this place is, frankly, that criminals are abusing the rules we have in place. They have been smuggling dogs, cats and ferrets to such an extent that more than 500 instances of non-compliance were found in Dover alone just in 2023. Given people’s concerns, it is right that we update the law. This single-issue Bill is the right way to make that happen.

During the debate on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, there was understandably considerable concern about mutilation. I am pleased that the Bill addresses that. As was said by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle)—I used to live in Garston at one point—mutilation is already against the law in this country, but too often people say, “Oh well, the dog came from abroad,” to try to get around the law. It is important that we address those specific issues.

Concerns have been expressed about the number of pets that can be brought over and what will be considered a non-commercial arrangement. For what it is worth, I think that a sensible compromise has been reached, but will the Minister answer a question about proposed new paragraph 1A in clause 4(4)(a)? Someone can bring in five animals if they are in a car, but only three in any other form of transport. I wondered what the situation was for someone on the train—on Eurostar—but not in a car. I think going through Eurotunnel is covered. If the Minister wants to think about that, I do not need an answer today, but I think it is worthy of consideration.

We must ensure that the Bill works across the United Kingdom, so it is important that there is the ability to give powers to Ministers in the devolved Administrations. During the Bill’s progress—which I hope is rapid— I would like to probe further the different times at which different clauses will come into effect. It is good to see that clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7 will come into effect straightaway on Royal Assent. It would be useful to understand a little more why clauses 4, 5 and 6 will take longer. I appreciate that there might be a transition, but at the moment the Bill says six months.

I guess that the most important thing of all is that we go further in Committee and on Report so that a deadline is put on the introduction of the regulations—certainly as far as the powers of UK Ministers allow. At the moment, the Bill provides the power to make regulations, but I think it is better, especially as we are trying to take this legislation through the private Members’ Bill route, to give ourselves a fixed deadline for getting the regulations done.

To that end, I am very conscious of other primary legislation. Consultation must often happen for regulations, and we know that that can take some time, so I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister has already started preparing regulations to bring clause 1 into effect. That is a very good point in the Bill to ensure that the first regulations must be about the specific issue of smuggling. I welcome that.

I am conscious that plenty of people would like to speak today. I know that the Bill will be welcomed by many pet owners who believe that they are doing the right thing. I am conscious that a lot of people, when they are on holiday abroad, will see animals and try to bring them back—through conscience, if that is what they feel—but that is not always very wise. We have to be careful about the sorts of diseases that can be brought into the country, especially in feral animals. Of course, we are well known around the world for our love of animals, and we do not like to see them in distress or just abandoned.

I encourage people who are considering taking on a pet to go to one of our brilliant charities and give an animal a second home. I can say from personal experience that it can be very positive; it can also be a bit of a nightmare dealing with some of the behavioural elements, which, later in life, can be a bit challenging to correct. However, a rescue cat, a rescue pet—I have never experienced a rescue ferret—will love you forever. It is a vital part of animal welfare to ensure that they are going to good homes and are not in the hands of criminals. The Bill will address the loopholes that exist today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Drinking water is treated with both ultraviolet light and chlorine before it goes into our taps, so it is perfectly safe. Water that goes through water treatment works is treated but not necessarily disinfected by the use of UV, unless it is heading towards a designated bathing water.

France is hosting the Olympics in Paris, and the Seine is being treated with performic acid. One place in this country, Southwold, is using performic acid right now, but scientists from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency have so far been reluctant to roll it out. If it is good enough for people to swim in the Seine during the Olympics, surely it is good enough to start using this treatment, which is cheaper and could be deployed across our country.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I reassure her that I am having conversations with officials not only in the Environment Agency but in DEFRA on this very issue. I am more than happy to meet her so she can share her knowledge from when she was Secretary of State.

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).

Pet Abduction Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Firth]

I will go back to where I began and thank all right hon. and hon. Members for attending the Committee and for their support. We have great champions of animal welfare in Parliament. I am grateful for the attendance of the hon. Member for Canterbury this morning and for her support on social media and through the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group.

Our nation is leading the way on animal welfare. Passing the Bill will cement our position and set an example, which I hope that many other countries will follow.

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.

Clause 6

Commencement

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

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out from “England” to end of line 7 and insert

“at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 7 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, I am keen for the Bill to include a date for commencement so that it is not contingent on the Government to table further regulations. I have tabled the amendment for two reasons. First, it would reduce the work required of civil servants and Parliament by not requiring further regulation, albeit through a humble commencement order—I know the legislative mechanisms that go on behind the curtain of Government, particularly in DEFRA. Secondly, I am keen to include a date for the key reason of public trust. When we say that we are going to make law, especially when the Bill has taken much longer than originally planned, a commencement date means that the public can be confident that the measure will be law this year, without further delay.

I am conscious that officials will want time to write guidance that can be used to effect the Bill. I had originally considered that two months was enough, but I have been persuaded that having three months for automatic commencement is acceptable.

I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Mark Spencer]

I can be swift. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) gave a commitment at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, putting it on the record that the Government will commence the Bill within three months in England. I can therefore support the amendment.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for promoting the Bill, which the Government fully support. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, not only for her amendment but all the work she has done in various roles to support and improve animal welfare in this country. She is a true champion of animal welfare. With that, I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through its stages; I am delighted to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Dr Coffey to wind up the debate.

[Dr Coffey]

We have said all that we need to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment 2 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

It is a rare privilege to chair a meeting of Members of Parliament in which there seems to be complete consensus, and I suspect that that will become even rarer over the coming months. [Laughter.]

Bill, as amended, to be reported.