Baroness Coffey (Con)

My Lords, that was a helpful debate about animal welfare, and one with which I am familiar. It is good to have seen so many people here in the House to hear it, especially with the news that not just one but two Government Ministers are resigning today. 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. That is why I bring forward to your Lordships’ House this Bill to modernise the said Act. I start by congratulating Aphra Brandreth for seeing this through the House of Commons in her first year as an MP. I am already familiar with the Bill, as I navigated it through the Commons last year with the assistance of my noble friend Lord Hart, who was then Chief Whip. He will be making his maiden speech during this debate; I look forward to listening to it. Unfortunately, the Bill ran out of time just ahead of the general election in 2024. That is why I thank the Defra Ministers, who have recognised how important the passage of this Bill is. Candidly, they will be much thanked by farmers for doing so. I thank the Defra officials for their help too. I know that they have been working on this for some time—frankly, for several years. We are nearly there. In essence, this Bill is an attempt at something of a simplification of the 1953 Act with some important updates, which are delivered through the Schedule in addition to the clauses. The Bill extends the area covered beyond the land to a road or path, to address attacks where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides 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 it also 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. Clause 1(a) gives effect to the Schedule, which brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence. 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. 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 in Clause 1 ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog rather than those costs falling on the police. The effect of Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, as animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. This modest extension is an important element of Clause 1. Other jurisdictions have tried to cover every animal under the sun. Rather than doing that, these modest extensions are ultimately about keeping the Bill and the Act in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned with the safety of their animals. Clause 2 updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. This is split into two areas: dogs found without their owner or person in charge, and dogs considered to be posing a continuing threat. For the latter, new Section 2(8) is explicit: “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, and … unless it is detained, there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again”. The overall effect of the new section is to make it more straightforward for police to be able 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, in 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. 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 it 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 for an application to a justice of the peace. Frankly, there have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog but then they do not; the dog simply disappears, never to be seen again. 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. The Act will automatically come into force after three months after the day it is passed. That avoids the need for any further regulations, which I believe is a good deregulatory approach in primary legislation. I turn to the parts of the Schedule that I have not already addressed. Paragraph 1(6) amends Section 1(4) of the 1953 Act and talks about attacking or worrying, which ensures that the Bill covers what it is supposed to. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Attacking is legally part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that attacking is distinct from worrying better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. To give a simplified view, this covers a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig directly, and many other animals that come under the terminology of livestock, as well as the sort of behaviour like running around these animals, which can cause distress and severe consequences, such as aborting. 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. To be clear, though, this provision is not creating a new offence; it is clarifying the language throughout the Act. In effect, both attacking and worrying are already covered in the 1953 Act, but that is not clear throughout. We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across the country. Your Lordships will be aware of some awful attacks that have happened around the country. Farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact and, frankly, too many people are often 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 may have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose causing such disruption. People already have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all farmers or shepherds want to do that. They want the owners to be responsible. That is why I am keen to ensure that the deterrent is sufficiently strong. In the current Act, the fine is capped at a maximum of £1,000. That will go up to an unlimited amount, which reflects the need for an effective deterrent. The reason why it is unlimited—it has become the trend in legislation to use the phrase “unlimited amount”—is that it is far more straightforward in practical terms to have an unlimited amount so that the Sentencing Council and the local courts can make the fine relevant to the impact and severity of the offence. I hope noble Lords realise that the Bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail in the clauses, and that is often the case when we are trying to amend other legislation, but I believe that these modest and, I hope, sensible changes will be important for our farmers and for the animals for which they care. I beg to move.