Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Second sitting)

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

This afternoon, we will hear first from Minette Batters, President of the National Farmers Union, who will appear virtually; Peter Stevenson, chief policy adviser for Compassion in World Farming, who will also appear virtually; and Rob Taylor from the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s livestock priority delivery group. We have until 3 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Minette Batters: Thank you so much. Minette Batters, President of the National Farmers Union.

Peter Stevenson: Peter Stevenson, chief policy adviser for Compassion in World Farming.

Rob Taylor: Good afternoon. I am Rob Taylor, the all-Wales wildlife and rural crime co-ordinator for the police. I am also the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s chair of the livestock priority delivery group.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

Q52 Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us. Minette, may I start with your views, and those of your members, on the live export provisions generally?

Minette Batters: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. We respect the Government’s manifesto commitment on live animal exports, but our main concern is the double standards of the approach. If we take the Australian trade deal as an example, we are allowed to move animals in Australia for 48 hours without any water at all, or overseas for boat journeys lasting up to a month. That has caused enormous concern for members. Farmers in this country passionately want to maintain and grow our animal welfare standards, but we are concerned primarily about the double standards of the approach with other trading partners, which will potentially undercut farmers in this country.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q But in terms of the actual live export provisions, your members can live with them as they are. You have no specific comments to make.

Minette Batters: I think there is a case to be made on unintended consequences, potentially for Northern Ireland to Great Britain, GB to Northern Ireland, the Isle of Wight, and the highlands and islands. We need to be very clear for future reference about precisely what the movements are when they are crossing water.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Yes, the Bill refers to the British Isles. What is your view, and your experiences and those of your members, on the problem with livestock worrying, particularly over the last year and a half or so, when we have seen a lot of pandemic puppies?

Minette Batters: Yes, it has been a massive problem, and we really welcome the new terminology in the Bill about attacking as well as worrying. We have never felt that worrying really does justice to what is going on. We face a situation where 15,000 sheep have been killed every year. That is information provided by SheepWatch UK. We feel very strongly that the terminology needs absolute clarity of thinking for farmers, dog walkers and the police. A dog at large should be a dog on a lead of no longer than 2 metres, to avoid confusion. A dog “with its owner” is not always with its owner, so we feel there needs to be absolute clarity that a dog at large is on a lead.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Would you have exemptions for a farmer’s dog or a sheep dog?

Minette Batters: If that were needed for clarity, it would be quite easy to facilitate. It would be in the farmer’s interest to make sure their dog is controlled but, if it were needed for clarity, we would support that.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q You will have seen that the Bill expands the definition of “livestock.” Is that something you feel strongly about?

Minette Batters: I think it needs to be like that to cover everything.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Peter, I know you have campaigned for many years on live exports. What are your views on that part of the Bill?

Peter Stevenson: Yes, Compassion in World Farming is pleased that the Bill includes a prohibition on live export for slaughter and fattening, but the Bill does not prohibit the export of high-value breeding animals, which we accept—we have never campaigned for that.

I have worked on this campaign for 30 years, and it began long before I started, probably 50 or 60 years ago. Of course we are pleased, and I congratulate the farming sector. The height of the trade was in 1993, when Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food figures showed that we exported 2 million sheep and an unbelievable 500,000 calves, nearly all male, to the continent for slaughter. The farming sector has got those figures down, and they are now much reduced. We export about 30,000 to 45,000 sheep a year and, in practice, calf exports from Great Britain stopped about 18 months ago. There have not been any pig exports for slaughter or fattening for some years. The farming sector has done terribly well.

I am sure some farmers have misgivings about this ban, but I urge them to say, “Yes, please impose it.” I think it is right that this chapter now comes to an end.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Rob, do you support the measures in the Bill on livestock worrying—or attacking, as Minette would remind us we should call it?

Rob Taylor: Very much so. This has been a long journey. I represent the police forces of the UK, and I was the team manager for North Wales police in 2013 when we started the first designated rural team of its type anywhere in the UK. We now have more than 25 dedicated teams throughout the UK. The problem of livestock attacks previously existed in our rural and farming communities, but it was never identified. The main reason is that no dedicated team existed, and the Government and the Home Office do not require the police to record the statistics. In a very short time of managing the team, I saw the sheer scope and scale of the horror of livestock attacks in our rural communities.

On average, in north Wales alone, we were seeing 125 attacks a year under the antiquated law, with the death of many sheep and dogs, including those that were being shot or euthanised. Over the following years, I decided to try education, which did not work.

I am a big believer that there needs to be an end result of rectifying this problem. We engaged four other forces to go on this journey with us and to find statistics that show it is not just a north Wales problem. As a force, we had recorded our stats voluntarily, but the other four forces had not and had to take six months to get those statistics up to a certain level. Their statistics replicated ours, and they showed the pure horror of livestock attacks throughout the UK.

I am now in charge of rural events in Wales, so I have oversight of all four forces in Wales, and three of them are voluntarily providing statistics. Those statistics remain high and continue to increase, with the death of many sheep and dogs, and at substantial cost. The law is antiquated and does not cover the offence as it occurs, and it does not support the police in the investigation of such offences.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q On that last point, do you feel the enhanced police powers in the Bill will help prosecute such offences?

Rob Taylor: Yes, and I say that with some authority as we have worked on the law for the past eight years, and we have worked intensively with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Sheep Association and other interested parties to get it to this point today. I have been in many meetings where many amendments have been made. I have read through it in detail and know it back to front. I am more than convinced that it will give the police and the courts the power to move us forward, so that the Bill will make a huge difference to not only policing, but irresponsible dog owners throughout the UK.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Can I end by asking: lead or no lead, in your view?

Rob Taylor: It is an interesting question. I would say lead in certain circumstances. If someone is in a field with cattle, the issue is that with the dog on a lead, the cattle will stampede. People have been killed in such environments. It is not straightforward. However, in a field with sheep, we definitely recommend that it take place.

The law is many years old, and there are a number of things in that that actually will be in place for 2022, such as obtaining DNA sampling. The big one for me is that previously you could not ban a dog owner. If a dog killed 100 sheep, the owner would appear before the court and receive a maximum fine of £1,000. The next day, they could go back, buy three dogs and continue the offence. I think it is ludicrous that that still occurs in our countryside in 2021.

[Victoria Prentis]

Thank you.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon to our witnesses. Minette, could I start with you? On livestock attacks, do you think that the maximum fine of £1,000 is sufficient?

Minette Batters: No, and it would be interesting to hear from the police on that. We feel that there need to be stronger controls. While I have the opportunity, the same applies for hare coursing. It is still far too easy to commit a crime with a dog without a severe penalty. We have a severe penalty on hare coursing with vehicles, but at the moment that cost falls to the police. We need to see that being tightened up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Rob Quest, the chairman of the Canine and Feline Sector Group, who is appearing virtually. We have until 3.30 pm for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself?

Rob Quest: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Rob Quest. I am the current chair of the Canine and Feline Sector Group.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Hello, Rob. Thank you for giving evidence to us. I have only a few questions for you. You will have heard some of the debate about livestock worrying. Are you in the lead or no-lead camp?

Rob Quest: Interesting. I think our consensus would be that we would support dogs on a lead in an enclosed field with cattle. That is easier to enforce than the general “at large” wording that was there, but we understand that the main concern with worrying is dogs that get out of people’s houses and have no one anywhere near them.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q We heard evidence from Rob Taylor that there were concerns with dogs being on a lead around cattle in particular, because of the risk to the human with the dog of being attacked. Would that tally with your experience?

Rob Quest: Yes. I think the guidance would be that if cattle come towards you and there is an issue, you have to let go of the lead or take the lead off the dog, because we understand the dangers there.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Moving on to the pet travel rules, where do you stand on putting in an exemption to include rescue dogs?

Rob Quest: Wearing my hat as chairman of the CFSG, and with my local authority experience of whoever knows how long, we would not support an exemption for rescue animals. The puppy issue is one thing, but we have problems with rescue animals as well.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Can you give us any examples from your experience?

Rob Quest: We get some of the same problems that you have with puppies—false paperwork, fake vaccine certificates and so on—with rescue dogs as well.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon. You may well have heard some of the evidence given by previous witnesses, but to return to the importation of dogs and cats in a vehicle, what is your view on the number—five or three?

Rob Quest: We would support three. It is probably easier for the enforcers if there is just a blanket of three, but we understand that there are also issues if you limit it too much. When families are travelling, they may have more than three. We understand from the data that it is very unlikely that individual families would have more than three animals, but if more than one family were travelling they may have three. Overall, we think that three is a good number.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Mike Webb, head of policy and public affairs at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. We have until 4 o’clock for this session. Will the witness please introduce himself?

Mike Webb: My name is Michael Webb. I am the head of policy and public affairs at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Thank you, Mike, for coming to give evidence. We have been touching on the same issues repeatedly. You have probably been following our proceedings, so without a great preamble can I go straight to the issues that concern us? On pet imports and pet travel, would you be in the five animals per vehicle camp or the three animals per vehicle camp?

Mike Webb: It will probably not surprise you to learn that I am in the three animals per vehicle camp, for reasons similar to those explained by colleagues earlier in the day. We still are yet to bottom out the intention behind setting the limit at five. It is worth recognising that the change to expressing this per vehicle rather than per person is incredibly welcome. That will make a significant difference.

We are arguing in favour of three simply because we do not believe that it will affect dog owners to a significant degree, given that so few people own more than three dogs. There are different figures being banded around. We have used the Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association figures, which say that 94% of dog owners have two or fewer dogs. That means that by extending it beyond three we would not capture too many legitimate dog owners, whose lives we certainly do not want to make difficult.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q I think the concern today has centred on dog owners travelling together legitimately—a person with two dogs travelling with another person with two dogs.

Mike Webb: It is a legitimate concern, although where I had some concern from the information from Brittany Ferries this morning was how many of the people travelling with more than three dogs in their party are a dog owner with two dogs and another dog owner with two dogs. Actually, four dogs in a car is quite a lot. How many of them are people who are passing those dogs off as their pets when, in fact, they are not? That is exactly what this law is trying to stop.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Do you agree that there should be no exemption for rescue dogs?

Mike Webb: Yes, given the loophole that was expressed earlier. We run an academy at Battersea that is focused very much on working with rescues, both domestic and international, to try to improve standards. One of the things we are working on is trying to prepare as well as we can for the advent of this legislation. My feeling is that most people recognise that it is necessary and that, if there were to be an exemption for rescue dogs, a significant loophole would be open to abuse. So for the time being at least, we would agree with that.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Finally, can you give us your views on whether cats should be included in any conversations about theft? What sort of values are you seeing for cats that are stolen at the moment?

Mike Webb: I think the issue with cats at the moment is that although the trade is perhaps less lucrative and less well known or understood than with dogs, we know that it is increasing. We have seen a steady increase in the number of cats brought into the UK over the last five or six years. The number we have been quoting is an estimate from PDSA that suggests 48,000 cats were brought into the UK between the start of the pandemic and May of this year. That is quite a sizable increase on five or six years ago, and it is continuing to grow. Our view is that the Bill puts forward some really sensible and welcome provisions for dogs, and it just makes sense to extend those to cats. This is a really good opportunity to significantly improve animal welfare. By extending some of these measures, particularly around pregnant cats, this is a great opportunity to improve animal welfare across the board, not just for dogs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Justine Shotton, president of the British Veterinary Association, who will appear virtually. We have until 4.30 pm. Could the witness please introduce herself for the record?

Justine Shotton: My name is Justine Shotton, and I am the president of the British Veterinary Association, which is the national representative body for veterinary surgeons in the UK.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Hello, Justine. Thank you very much for giving evidence to us. Do you support the livestock worrying provisions in the Bill, and specifically the expansion of the definition of livestock?

Justine Shotton: Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence. We are absolutely in favour of the livestock worrying part of the Bill. We have one area of concern: there need to be safeguards in the Bill to ensure that any seized dogs are not held in kennels for long periods, because we are worried that that could affect their welfare. That is really our main concern in that area.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Lovely. I will move straight on, then. Do you also approve of the export ban for fattening and slaughter, and are you happy with that area of the Bill?

Justine Shotton: We feel that this is an area where we really need to focus on not just journey times but the overall experience of the animals. In some instances, the journey time may be shorter even if they are going abroad. We need to be mindful of the whole picture and the welfare impacts on the animals, so it is a bit more nuanced. We need to be really aware of not only the quality of the journey overall, but whether such things as time spent in markets or collection centres will affect the journey and will be considered in terms of the journey time. We need some tightening up of the welfare experience of animals in collection centres and markets. We also have a concern about how the Bill could affect rural areas, in terms of travel time from the highlands and islands. We want to ensure that a ban on exports does not oversimplify the issue when there are other welfare considerations.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Absolutely. Have you been fully sighted on the consultation on animal transport generally?

Justine Shotton: Yes.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Great. A lot of that is not dealt with in the Bill, which deals specifically with live exports, but is dealt with elsewhere.

Justine Shotton: Yes, and we are very happy to support and feed in where we can.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Brilliant. Thank you. You might have heard some of the discussion in Committee today about whether reducing the number of pets that can travel per vehicle from five to three is a good thing. Where do you stand on that?

Justine Shotton: We support a reduction in the number of animals per consignment in general, and the ability to restrict imports on welfare grounds, as in other areas that are detailed. If the reduction goes ahead, we ask for a tightly worded exemption, so that people relocating permanently back to the UK who have more than three pets can bring them all. We are concerned about that in particular, but we support measures in general that reduce the number of animals per consignment.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q So you would be more happy with three per vehicle than with five.

Justine Shotton: To some extent, the numbers are relatively arbitrary, but overall we feel a reduction is sensible. We have some key asks on the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets. We feel there should be mandatory pre-import testing, particularly for dogs with unknown health status coming from countries where we know that diseases that are not present in the UK are endemic. That is partly to protect our dog populations, but also to protect public health, because some of these are zoonotic diseases. We are seeing an increasing incidence of such diseases as Brucella canis. We would really like an amendment to be tabled on that.

[Victoria Prentis]

We have seen your evidence, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border asks questions about that frequently. Thank you; that is all from me.

[The Chair]

I am sure he will ask some more, Minister. We now go to the hon. Member for Cambridge.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We move straight on to our next witness, Mike Flynn, who is also joining us virtually. He is the chief superintendent of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Could you please introduce yourself?

Mike Flynn: I am Mike Flynn, chief superintendent of the Scottish SPCA. I am delighted to be here.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Thank you for joining us. I have only really one question: do you think it is helpful that we have been able to work as four nations on the import and export measures for the Bill? Do you think that will help with enforcement?

Mike Flynn: I am absolutely delighted that you have worked with the devolved Administrations. If certain parts of the Bill are not UK-wide, that will open up loopholes for everyone. Take cropping dogs’ ears, for instance: if it is not banned in Scotland, they would import them into Scotland and transport them down to England. It really has to be UK-wide.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Thank you for joining us. My question follows on from that: the written evidence from Compassion in World Farming stresses that is absolutely essential, particularly on the live export ban, that all the Administrations work together in tandem. How confident are you that we are in situation?

Mike Flynn: On the importation of dogs and the import and export of livestock for further farming, I think you are on the right track. I have spoken to people in the Scottish Government and they are happy with that—I believe a consent motion has already been laid before the Scottish Parliament. As I said in my previous answer, if there is one part of the UK that is exempt, it will open up loopholes and encourage people, especially in the puppy trade, to exploit that loophole.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We move on to our final witness of the day, Dr Hazel Wright, senior policy officer at the Farmers Union of Wales, who is joining us virtually. We have until 5.30 pm. Dr Wright, please introduce yourself for the record.

Dr Wright: My name is Dr Hazel Wright, and I am the senior policy officer for the Farmers Union of Wales.

[Victoria Prentis]

Q Hello, Hazel. Thank you very much for giving evidence to us. I have only one question for you. We have heard today that livestock worrying and attacks have been a particular issue in Wales. Would you like to give us a summary of your experiences, and those of your members?

Dr Wright: Yes; they are huge and longstanding. The Bill is well overdue in that regard. We have repeat attacks and offences on farms. A National Sheep Association survey said that one farm had been hit up to 100 times in one year. The financial and emotional consequences of that are huge. Surveys from North Wales police, which was the first police service to record the data, gave estimates of about 300 or 400 attacks in about three and a half years, which is one every three days. That is just in north Wales. In a system that has low profitability and low margins, those kinds of attacks are make or break for some businesses, especially those that have built up their breeding stock over long periods. They have managed to build businesses up from scratch. Some of them are having problems with succession, for example. It is a massive issue, which I cannot be overestimated in the current climate.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon. Following up on that question, are you satisfied to that extent with the measures in the Bill or do you think that dogs should be kept on a lead near livestock?

Dr Wright: Everything that I say from now on is caveated with the fact that the Bill is incredibly welcomed and is good news. However, I do not think it goes far enough to define under close control or proper control. We need to have a situation where dogs are on a lead in fields near or adjacent to livestock. I notice that the Bill says that if somebody believes their dog will return “reliably and promptly” then it is under close control, but I honestly do not believe that anyone can be confident that that would be the case when their dog is in a field near livestock. Dogs are natural predators—it is in their genetic make-up. I feel that the Bill needs to go one step further and ensure that dogs are kept on a lead.