Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, I am pleased to appear under your wise guidance, Mrs Latham, as we look at this vital and important legislation. I represent 200 square miles of rolling Hampshire downland, much of it dotted with sheep. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, we have seen our share of horrible incidents over the past few years; the legislation is therefore extremely welcome for me and my constituents—and I declare an interest as a dog owner.

I, too, have some small matters of detail that I want to raise for possible consideration on Report, in the spirit of trying constructively to improve the Bill. I will go through them, if I may. The first is about territorial extent. I am not as legally proficient as my right hon. and learned Friend, but I want to ensure that areas of Crown land are covered, not least royal parks, which often have their own legislation to cover what happens within them. Members will remember the famous case of Fenton chasing deer across Richmond Park—happily, in that case there was a prosecution and a conditional discharge for six months. We need to look at that. In particular, we need to think about the foreshore. There are parts of this country where sheep graze the foreshore, eating seaweed and whatever. It produces delightful slightly salty and sweet lamb, but the foreshore is a part of our landmass that has its own legal status and largely, I think I am right in saying, belongs to the Crown. It would be interesting to see how we can make sure that the legislation applies there.

The second issue that I want to raise is the retention of dogs by the police. When I was at City Hall, in a previous life, I started a campaign to drive out the plethora of dangerous dogs in London and improve the legislation. We got amendments then, but one thing that deterred the police from detaining dangerous dogs was the cost of holding them. Often, a dog would be detained, the trial would be awaited, the dog would be held—sometimes for months—the owner would not show up to the trial and the dog would be destroyed, but the police would be left with the cost. I understand that in this case there is a seven-day limit and I wonder whether we could consider that for amendment on Report.

In my honest opinion, owners will partially pay. They will get to seven days, plead that they cannot afford it and partially pay some of the costs to try to avoid their dog being put down. A game will be played. There needs to be firmer provision: either that, at seven days, partial payment is not good enough and the constable may dispose of the dog, or that an owner can agree immediately upon seizure of the dog that the dog may be disposed of. At the moment I cannot see in the Bill the possibility that, if my dog kills 27 sheep and is seized, I can say to the police there and then, “I don’t want the dog back. Do what you will with it,” at no cost to me.

The third area for possible future amendment is the types of livestock that are covered by the legislation. I understand that the Bill will add camelids. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal said that she did not want to cover every animal, but I am conscious that other animals, such as ostriches, may be part of the UK’s agricultural mix in the future. I wonder whether it would be sensible for us to future-proof the Bill by amending it to allow animals to be added by regulation rather than by primary legislation. Who knows what we will be eating in 10 or 15 years’ time?

Finally, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon that there is an issue with repeat offences and that fines need to be very significant. However, once a dog gets a taste for worrying livestock, it is quite difficult to train it out of it. It requires a lot of dedication and time. The owner has to be convinced of the seriousness of the problem. Sometimes professional help is required. I think we should consider the possibility of a “three strikes and you’re out” rule, so that if someone’s dog worries livestock three times to the extent that they fall foul of the legislation, a destruction order is made for the dog. In such cases, where the person is pretty obviously not putting effort into stopping their dog or training it out of the habit, and it is a danger to livestock in the area where they live and possibly also a danger to human beings, there really ought to be a “three strikes and you’re out” rule.

The four things I have mentioned would all add to a greater sense of discipline and rigour around the ownership of dogs, particularly in the countryside, and I hope they can be looked at on Report. I suggest them in the spirit of working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal to try to make the Bill as strong as possible. The Bill is extremely welcome. I know that many of my constituents will cheer her to the rafters for the work she has done both as Secretary of State and in bringing forward the Bill, and I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.