Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Wednesday 21st May 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesDogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. First, please remember to switch off any electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted, other than the bottled water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could provide any speaking notes to them via their email or the Doorkeeper. I remind Members to speak through the Chair. You may use “you” to me—if I, say, had a dangerous dog—but otherwise, “you” should not be used to address other Members.
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. One amendment has been tabled. We will have a single debate on the amendment and all the clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Livestock worrying: scope and consequences of offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.
Amendment 1, in the schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) In subsection (2), omit “(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)”.
(3B) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—
(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or
(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—
(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and
(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.””
This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
The schedule.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business.
I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation.
I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time.
The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying.
I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation.
Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary.
Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks.
In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent.
Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses.
The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending.
Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have
“attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.”
Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely
“until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.”
To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner.
Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge.
Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes:
“causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”
Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again.
Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2.
Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited.
Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains:
“If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.”
Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained:
“A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”
Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development.
Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack.
Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence.
Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary.
These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome.
Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill.
The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.
The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example.
For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout.
Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen.
Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed.
I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome.
The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is
“not on a lead or otherwise under close control”.
That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements.
Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice
“to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”,
including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment.
I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. It is a Wednesday, so this must be another private Member’s Bill on animal welfare; I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing us this important Bill. It is not often that we get such clear and wholehearted support from farmers and animal welfare groups, so I congratulate her. It is good to see animals such as alpacas and llamas mentioned specifically. It gives me flashbacks to meetings of the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, at which we discussed at great length how llamas and alpacas are an increasing part of farm life in the UK these days. I am pleased to see that they are included.
We know that the law around livestock worrying is outdate, and needs updating to reflect current challenges. As the hon. Member outlined, the animal welfare impacts of livestock worrying can be devastating for the animals concerned; those that are not killed are left in agony, with serious injuries, and often have to be euthanised. I am pleased to support the clarification provided by the Bill she has introduced.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Western. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to serve on this Bill Committee, the first in my parliamentary career—that is a tick in the box. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for this opportunity and I look forward to discussing her important private Member’s Bill.
It is fitting, both as a representative of a rural constituency, Caerfyrddin, and as a dairy farmer, that my first Bill Committee concerns a matter that impacts us too much in the countryside. The Bill aims to do what it says on the tin: to protect livestock from the very real threat of worrying and attacks by dogs at large on farmed land, by increasing and improving evidential and enforcement powers. I fully welcome those aims and it is clear that all farmers do as well.
NFU Mutual figures revealed that farm animals worth around £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023, up 30% on the previous year. The figure for Wales alone was over £880,000. Although those figures decreased slightly in 2024, the problem persists. More than 80 dog attacks on livestock were reported by North Wales police alone in 2024. People want that to change. Last year, over 20,000 people signed an NFU petition calling on police and crime commissioners to implement changes to legislation to prevent dog attacks in farmed animals.
It is clear that legislation, as it stands, is not sufficient to protect livestock from such attacks. The 1953 Act, which this Bill amends, is more than 70 years old and generally regarded as unfit for purpose. The Farmers’ Union of Wales finds that it does not reflect the significant welfare, emotional and financial impacts of dog attacks on livestock. Change is long overdue, and indeed has been in the pipeline for many years. Prior to this Bill, a private Member’s Bill with the same text was introduced by the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, in 2023 and considered by a Committee. That was before my time, but that Bill might have passed then, if the then Prime Minister had not called a general election in May 2024.
Farming organisations have highlighted clause 37 of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as an example of strengthening definitions within current legislation to provide necessary clarity—and here comes my amendment, which seeks to do just that: to fill the gap to define when a dog is “at large” for the purpose of livestock worrying offences, in exactly the same way as the Conservatives’ Bill, but by amending the 1953 Act. The definition informs the Bill’s provision and would give dog owners—and for that matter farmers—clarity on what constitutes keeping their dog under control when livestock is present, and on what is expected of them. The Bill sets out consequences for when a dog owner does not meet those expectations.
This is not a perfect amendment and it would not fix everything, but it calls for all dogs to be kept on a lead in fields near or adjacent to livestock, which is something that the Minister himself wanted to add to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill when it was in Committee. My amendment would provide some extra definition to help to tackle the issue of dog attacks on livestock. It does not reinvent the wheel, but rather tries again to put into legislation what was already in motion and had been supported in the past.
I want to give a few figures. In a survey last month, 87% of farmers said they had experienced dog attacks on their sheep flocks in the last 12 months, and 78% said that dogs had not been put on a lead during those incidents. Some 80% of farmers reported negative experiences from the dog owners, and 43% had to euthanise the sheep after a worrying attack. These are just statistics, but they are important—they represent people’s lives and their livelihoods.
A lack of awareness and responsibility among dog owners will likely remain an issue in the tackling of livestock worrying by dogs, but my amendment would provide some of the clarity that we need on owners’ responsibility when controlling their own dogs or dogs in their charge, and what that means. I hope that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is open to supporting the amendment, as it was first proposed by her own Government.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. Farming plays an important role in the local economy of North Somerset. Since being elected last year, I have met scores of hard-working farmers beset by a wide range of issues, not least rural crime and the inadequate protections currently provided to their livestock—their livelihoods. I pass on my thanks to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing the Bill, and to the Minister for supporting it.
Farming is not just an industry. It is a way of life that shapes our landscapes, sustains our rural economy and preserves the ancient character of our communities, yet farmers I have spoken with have too often told me harrowing tales of losses sustained during dog attacks. According to data provided by the NFU, last year alone an estimated £1.8 million-worth of animals were killed or severely injured across the UK due to dog attacks. Behind every one of those incidents is a farmer who has had to deal with the financial and emotional toll of such attacks.
Farmers in my constituency will be grateful for the certainty and security that the Bill will provide. It is not about punishing dogs or pet owners. As an animal lover myself, I could never support any such legislation. We all value our countryside and our right to walk and explore the land, but with those rights come responsibilities. The right to roam must never mean the right to cause harm. By making clear the consequences for irresponsible behaviour, we encourage responsible dog ownership, which is good for both farmers and dog owners.
The Bill will give police the power to collect evidence and seize dogs when needed. It equips law enforcement to act swiftly and effectively. When people know that the law has teeth, they think twice about conducting themselves irresponsibly. Farmers have waited long enough for such measures. This is practical, balanced legislation that will finally give farmers the peace of mind they deserve.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important legislation.
Farming plays an important role in my constituency. Livestock worrying can cause serious injury, immense suffering and, in the worst cases, death to farm animals. These incidents are not only traumatic for farmers but result in significant financial losses. According to data from NFU Mutual, insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023.
This Bill makes several improvements to the existing law. First, it creates a distinction between worrying and attacking livestock. That is important, because it allows the strengthening of police powers to respond more effectively to actual attacks. Currently, it is difficult for the police to collect evidence following an alleged attack. It is too easy for an owner to prevent police from collecting evidence, such as by taking samples of blood on fur. The Bill fixes that, ensuring that officers can act to collect evidence so long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an attack has happened.
The Bill will also allow officers to seize and detain a dog that is believed to have caused an attack. Unfortunately, too many dogs that worry livestock are what we might refer to as repeat offenders. This measure makes it easier to prevent the most dangerous dogs from causing further harm to livestock.
Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the scope of the existing legislation. As anyone who has ever tried to drive down a country lane will know, it is not uncommon for livestock to cross the lanes between fields. At the moment, if an animal is attacked when it is not in one of the farm fields, the responsibility falls on the farmer, rather than the owner of the dog, to prevent the worrying. Including roads and paths in this legislation is a simple measure to close this loophole and ensure that dog owners have to control their dogs around livestock at all times.
Lastly, I support the move to include camelids within the definition of livestock, which will protect the llamas and alpacas at the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow in my constituency. I am delighted to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing it forward.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is my colleague and friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I congratulate her on reintroducing this important Bill. I know that she is personally and professionally dedicated to this matter.
Like many colleagues, I receive hundreds of emails from my constituents about animal welfare, and particularly the wellbeing and protection of farmed animals—we may not have a farm, but we care greatly about this issue. As a Londoner born and bred, I had not heard the phrase “livestock worrying” before the hon. Member asked me to serve on this Committee. I did know about incidents of animals being attacked on farms, but I was shocked to learn how widespread these incidents of dogs chasing, attacking or causing distress to livestock are, and about the financial and emotional impact of livestock worrying. I think we all agree that no animal should be made to suffer unnecessary pain, alarm or distress, and hearing the stories from Members on the Committee today has been moving and powerful.
This Bill is an important step to protect farm animals from dog attacks, strengthening police powers and promoting responsible dog ownership. As someone who was once the proud owner of a boisterous German shepherd called Prince, I know the importance of being a responsible dog owner, particularly with large dogs. For so many of us, treating animals, nature and our planet with care and respect is a mark of the type of society we want to be. That is why animal welfare and the protection of livestock is an issue that so often unites Members from across the House. I am therefore not surprised and am very pleased that this important Bill enjoys cross-party support and that the Labour Government are supporting it, to better protect the welfare of our livestock.
We should always strive for the highest possible animal welfare standards, so I welcome the Bill and congratulate the NFU on its hard work in lobbying on this important issue. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for reintroducing the Bill, for her efforts to bring it to this stage, securing cross-party support for these measures, and for saying the word “llama” to me more times this month than it has perhaps ever been said in the House before.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate. I bumped into my neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, the other day and said, “Can I say a few words on Wednesday morning?” She said, “Well, no one else is going to be speaking, and they will want to get out as quickly as possible.”—but when I saw everybody stand up to speak this morning, I scribbled some notes, which I will happily put to the Committee.
I want to start by congratulating the hon. Member on her excellent speech and on appointing the most excellent Committee I have served on—I have served on three since my election to the House last July. Before my election to Parliament, I spent several years working on animal welfare, particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn and the Minister. This is a little bit like the old days—but the view from the Government Benches is much better than the view from the Public Gallery at the back.
As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury knows, my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency borders hers, and many of my fields roll into hers across the county border. Both constituencies are home to wonderful, hard-working farmers, and this important Bill will help to make their lives easier and better. As the impact assessment points out, livestock worrying has negative economic and animal welfare implications, and is a matter of serious concern for farmers such as those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, rural police forces and our rural communities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow pointed out, concern about the issue is not restricted to rural communities; it extends to inner-city areas, where there is care and compassion for animal welfare and a desire to strengthen it. The Bill is about supporting our farmers, not attacking dog owners. That is important to point out. I do not have a dog, despite my wife desperately wanting one, but the Bill helps our farmers and the dogs that are owned by those we are trying to hold accountable. We need to keep them doing the right thing.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I declare my professional and personal interest in this subject as a veterinary surgeon.
I am delighted that there is clear consensus across the House on the need to tackle livestock worrying and attacks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury on securing the passage of this vital and important Bill. I cannot continue without congratulating and paying tribute to the many groups in this space that have championed reform, such as the National Sheep Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, which I now co-chair with Lord Trees, who is also a vet.
Sadly, as a veterinary surgeon, I have seen at first hand the tragic effects of dog attacks. I have met with farmers right across the country who have impressed upon me the importance of protecting our livestock. This Bill unfortunately did not quite succeed in completing the parliamentary process in the previous Parliament. It was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—this is like groundhog day for the Minister and me, as we sat on that Bill Committee together—and then sponsored by our friend the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, who now has been rightly elevated to a seat in the House of Lords for her services to the House and to DEFRA.
Baroness Coffey contributed to the Conservative Government’s great efforts to improve animal welfare in this area and others, cementing this country’s world-leading status. Our achievements included introducing pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increasing penalties for animal cruelty, banning livestock being exported for slaughter or fattening, and—not in a private Member’s Bill, but in Government legislation—enshrining animal sentience into law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The Animal Sentience Committee was created so that any legislation passed by this House has to pay due regard to the concept of animal sentience. That is a clear achievement on which I am sure we can agree across the House.
Sadly, statistics from the National Sheep Association make stark reading on the real issue that livestock worrying presents for our livestock and for the farmers whose livelihoods depend on them. In a 2025 survey by the association, 87% of respondents said that they had experienced a dog attack on one of their sheep in the past 12 months, and 4% of those said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such incidents in the past 12 months. Those are shocking figures.
The impact of worrying on livestock is a huge welfare concern for the animals affected. Physically, livestock that face worrying can be hurt. Sadly, if an attack results, they may die or have to be euthanised because of their wounds. The National Sheep Association survey found that only 20% of farmers were alerted directly of an incident that affected their livestock. Many incidents are not dealt with straightaway, which can delay lifesaving treatment of the animals.
Physical injuries can come not only from the attack itself, but from the sheer distress that the threat of a dangerous uncontrolled dog can cause. Trauma can often cause the injury of livestock that over-exert themselves fleeing the danger. In areas with a boundary or wall, where livestock are often kept, fleeing can cause stampedes in which livestock are crushed in an attempt to escape. The trauma can cause pregnant livestock, such as sheep, to miscarry; born young can be lost and separated from the dam in attempts to escape the attack, which puts those young livestock at risk.
Emotional trauma is not something that farmers of affected livestock are immune to. The sight of a livestock attack can be emotionally distressing, and the memory can stay with farmers way beyond the end of the attack. Likewise, the financial cost resulting from the injuries caused to livestock, or from the loss of livestock, can create long-term emotional distress for our farmers. The financial cost of farm animals being killed or injured by dogs is estimated to have totalled £1.8 million last year, according to NFU Mutual. One can only imagine the significant financial and emotional consequences spread across the farming population.
Only last week, I had the privilege of attending a roundtable led by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, which highlighted that the health of our farming communities is interlinked with their emotional and financial wellbeing. It is crucial that we tackle the shock factors that can have a knock-on impact. Livestock worrying and attacks are among the shocks, and the Bill is a vital place to start tackling the wider issue. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury cares very deeply about rural mental health; the Bill will help to mitigate the mental health effects on our rural communities.
As 98% of respondents to the National Sheep Association survey believe that additional police powers are needed, I highly welcome the fact that clauses 2, 3 and 4 will give them exactly that. Under clause 2, the police’s power to seize dogs that they have good reason to believe have been involved in an offence under the 1953 Act will be expanded to cover dogs found on roads or paths that may have been or could be involved in offences. That is an important addition to the legislation that will help to close some of the loopholes. It is a crucial measure that will enable police to act swiftly to begin the process of investigation and prevent any further harm to animals or human beings.
Another important step that will strengthen police powers to tackle the issue is the permission granted under clause 3 for police and veterinary surgeons to take samples or impressions, where appropriate, from animals wounded by livestock worrying, or indeed from the animals involved, to support law enforcement in finding the supporting evidence for a criminal offence and bringing the necessary charges. The NFU has championed the measure, which, if used in the right way, could be vital to ensuring that those who commit these offences are brought to justice. The value of that cannot be overstated. As the NFU has pointed out in its campaigning, livestock worrying incidents are too often under-reported.
What support will the Government provide to ensure that DNA testing systems can be a consistent and reliable method of identification and a consistent and reliable evidence-gathering tool? The NFU highlights research into the issue by Liverpool John Moores University, but are the Government prepared to support such research and translate it into practice? If advances are made, what steps will they take to support police forces across the country in implementing the methods effectively as soon as possible? The possibilities of DNA testing could change the game when it comes to prosecuting reckless dog owners. That, in turn, could increase farmers’ confidence that if they report offences, they will get the action that they need from the police.
Clause 4 will introduce an important extension of the police’s ability to investigate livestock worrying and attacks, and will make the system effective in prosecuting offences under the 1953 Act. It will permit police with a warrant to search properties in which there are suspected to be dogs that were involved in such offences. That is important, because it will end the feeling, which far too many people have, that once an attack or worrying event has taken place, nothing will be done to bring justice for victims or prosecute perpetrators.
That approach is to be welcomed, but a core focus on the criminal justice lens must be only one pillar of our strategy for tackling the issue. Criminal justice can intervene only after the fact, once the incident has taken place and the damage of worrying or attacks has been done. Prevention is much better than cure, so another pillar of the strategy must be responsible dog ownership.
The previous Conservative Government set up a responsible dog ownership working group, in which police, stakeholders and animal welfare groups came together to encourage better education and guidance on how people can keep pets safe, as well as keeping other animals and humans around their pets safe. That includes ensuring that owners understand the necessity of keeping dogs on leads around livestock, and that they know how to control their pets to prevent them from becoming a threat. The significant reduction in the cost of livestock worrying, injury or death in Wales between 2023 and 2024—from £883,000 to £314,000, a decrease of 64%—has been attributed to factors such as education campaigns, Blue Cross training courses for dog owners, effective rural crime teams and social media outreach. I also highlight the importance of the countryside code, which gives good guidance on being with a dog in a rural area. It is important that we amplify that educational message; it is therefore expedient that responsible dog ownership be worked on in parallel with excellent legislation such as this Bill.
It is unfortunate that the present Government have not addressed the working group or its future, although they have said that they will work with police, local authorities, animal welfare groups and veterinary groups on the concept of dog ownership. I am a good friend of the Minister, for whom I have deep respect, but I gently ask him what the Government mean when they say that they are working with police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to tackle the problem. Are those involved in the responsible dog ownership working group involved in discussions with the Government? Will they be able to make recommendations to the Government, as the working group could? How often are the Government talking to those they say they are working with? Will the Government confirm that they understand that responsible dog ownership is a vital component of tackling livestock worrying and attacks?
Much of the discussion today has focused on sheep and cattle, but it is important to note that livestock worrying and attacks also affect horses, ponies and donkeys. I also welcome paragraph 2 of the schedule, because we know the impact that livestock worrying can have on camelids such as alpacas and llamas. I have met alpaca farmers who have impressed on me how important it is that the legislation cover camelids.
Despite my constructive questions to the Minister, I reiterate my wholehearted support for the Bill and urge colleagues across the political divide to support it, as I am sure they will.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury not just on introducing the Bill, but on her calm and thorough presentation of the issues, which served as an excellent introduction to our discussions.
I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the range of organisations that have engaged constructively on the long path to this point. He eloquently outlined the history, including the work of Baroness Coffey, to whom I pay tribute for strengthening the legislation in her version of the Bill. I have a sense of déjà vu from previous debates and from last week’s discussions—we are still working on measures that could have been put in place through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—but here we are, and we can all celebrate the fact that this is finally going to happen.
Let me reiterate how seriously the Government take the issue. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock have devastating impacts on animals and people. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or even death to the livestock and has a seriously detrimental effect on farmers and on those who work in the countryside.
I am very grateful for the contributions from Members across the Committee. We all know that the issue is important, but there are some wider implications that are perhaps not so immediately obvious, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds sometimes smothered.
Let me repeat some statistics. In 2025, a National Sheep Association survey found that 96% of farmers experienced between one and 10 sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. The remaining 4% experienced between 10 and 30 incidents, and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack; one of our colleagues conveyed that powerfully in a previous discussion. Those tragic statistics show that it is worth our time ensuring that the Bill is passed.
The Bill takes forward important measures that will extend the locations and species in scope of the 1953 Act, strengthen police powers and increase the penalty from the current £1,000 fine. I am well aware of the strength of feeling among Members across the House, stakeholders and people who live and work across our country.
The main purpose of the Bill is to improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. It extends powers of seizure and modifies entry powers; it also introduces a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Obviously, the world has changed a lot since the 1953 Act was passed; the Bill should give the police the tools they need to investigate, collect evidence and, most important, increase the number of prosecutions. It is striking how difficult it is to do that.
The shadow Minister asked about the DNA systems for evidence gathering. DEFRA has part-funded phase 1 of the canine DNA recovery project, which as he said is led by Liverpool John Moores University. The project will support measures in the Bill, and, we hope, facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect the data. We are working with the project team, and I have asked them about how we can ensure the new DNA powers are rolled out effectively with the police.
As we have heard, the Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater outlined so eloquently. That will help to protect livestock when farmers need to move them from place to place.
The changed wording of the offence and the creation of separate offences for attacks on livestock and worrying is really important; the shadow Minister made that point strongly. The term “worrying” can downplay the severity of some of these offences; the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made that point very effectively. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of the incidents. My hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset and for Stratford and Bow showed that there is widespread understanding of just how serious these issues are. The welcome extension, referenced by a number of hon. Members, of the 1953 Act to include camelids such as llamas and alpacas will allow much greater protection.
The maximum penalty, which is currently a fine of £1,000, will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will be able to determine an appropriate fine in line with sentencing guidelines that takes account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender.
The amendment was so eloquently spoken to that I was surprised to hear that this is the first time the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has served on a Bill Committee; I hope she is enjoying it. The procedures are sometimes quite complicated. The 1953 Act makes it an offence to allow a dog to be “at large” around sheep in fields or enclosures, and makes it clear that a dog is at large if it is not on a lead or otherwise under close control. She is absolutely right to say that I have raised similar questions in the past about how to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on that. However, I have been advised that the current approach is sensible, as it places strong requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, but does not unduly restrict the circumstances in which a court could conclude that a dog was not under close control.
It is important to get the balance right between responsible dog ownership, which I will come back to in a moment, and livestock protection. We know that many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. The countryside code, which I strongly believe we should strengthen and promote, already provides comprehensive guidance for dog walkers and highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. I pay tribute to organisations such as the National Trust that are doing good work to promote and educate on responsible dog ownership. It is important that people understand what it is sensible to do when walking in the countryside.
The amendment would specify in more detail when a dog should be treated as being under close control, but I have been advised that that that is not expected to change behaviour among responsible dog walkers. The advice that persuaded me to change my mind is that setting out the meaning of “close control” risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. The benefit of the current approach is that it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was not under close control, and that evidence need not be limited to proving specific elements such as whether the owner had reason to be confident that the dog would respond promptly to recall. On balance, therefore, I think it preferable not to introduce the more stringent requirement. Although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, I gently ask her not to press her amendment.
Turning to the wider animal welfare issues, I was delighted to hear the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who quite rightly did exactly what one would expect of one’s colleagues and urged the Government to move more quickly. I will relay that message to my colleagues. I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are consulting widely. This is the important point: we were elected on a strong commitment to strengthen animal welfare. We are engaged in detailed conversations with all the stakeholders at the moment and will come forward with proposals that will, I am sure, satisfy my most engaged colleagues. I look forward to having that discussion with them as we go forward.
Daniel Zeichner
I will certainly give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to press me.
Adam Jogee
Old habits die hard, Minister. I am grateful to him for acknowledging my comments and those of our hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn. When he speaks to his colleagues at the Department, will he get us a date for the publication of this strategy?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s helpful contribution. I assure him that a date will emerge in due course. I am very happy to offer the Government’s support for the Bill.
Dr Hudson
Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I want to ask him one question. He said he would talk about what the Government are doing on responsible dog ownership. This discrete, and welcome, piece of legislation will do a lot to protect animal health and welfare, but it is part of a package of measures. We need to ensure that people who own dogs source them responsibly, train them responsibly, socialise them responsibly and manage them responsibly. How will this Government continue the work of the Conservative Government, who set up the responsible dog ownership working group? How will they ensure that the medium and longer-term piece of work, which will not be easy, is done in parallel? Legislation has been passed about XL bully dogs in the last couple of years—another discrete piece of legislation —but there must be work in parallel on responsible dog ownership. I would be grateful if the Minister said what his Government will do in that space.
Daniel Zeichner
The shadow Minister is right; I meant to fold that into my previous answer. As he would expect, this new Government are taking stock. By supporting these private Members’ Bills, we are effectively finishing the work of the previous Parliament before we move on to our exciting new measures, and our approach to responsible dog ownership will form part of that.
Aphra Brandreth
Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions.
At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today.
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.
Amendment proposed: 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’.
(3B) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—
(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or
(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—
(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and
(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”—(Ann Davies.)
This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Daniel Zeichner
May I endorse that and thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for the way she has conducted this process? We wish the Bill well, because it is very important to tackle attacks on and worrying of livestock. The Bill will strengthen the 1953 Act, so let us get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Friday 4th July 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberDogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to reach this milestone in the Bill’s journey through the House of Commons. As we know, livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers. In Committee, I and other Committee members shared the experiences that had resonated with us of farmers having suffered attacks to their livestock. The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically often fatal. There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and their young leading to hypothermia or starvation. I have seen pictures from farmers in my constituency of the aftermath of attacks that have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive.
The consequences of an attack, no matter the scale, are profound, and attacks are sadly all too common. The data from the recent National Sheep Association survey speaks for itself: 96% of respondents had experienced incidents in the last 12 months, and 98% agreed that there is an urgent need for additional police powers. The responses highlight that livestock worrying remains a huge problem for the sector and show just how important it is to deliver the Bill.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
As someone who grew up on a sheep farm, a vet who has treated injuries caused by dogs that are out of control, and someone who continues to work with farmers quite closely in the Meon valley, I cannot emphasise enough how necessary this legislation is. The problem is devastating for animals, but also causes farmers to take a huge economic hit. It is horrendously stressful for everyone involved, and it is not a niche problem—it happens all the time. I thank the hon. Member for introducing this legislation.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank the hon. Member for his insights as a vet, and for emphasising what so many people across the House know: these changes are vital. May I also say how grateful I am to the hon. Members who took the time to serve on the Bill Committee? I am truly grateful for their support and contributions, and for the conversations I have had with many of them about the Bill.
As we heard in Committee, the Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring that it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. The Bill strengthens police powers, so that they can do their job more effectively. Specifically, it gives the police powers of entry, and allows them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence—changes that farmers in my constituency have specifically told me are necessary. The Bill will also increase the penalty—and we hope, in turn, the deterrent against livestock worrying. The fine is currently capped at a maximum of £1,000; that will go up to an unlimited amount, to reflect the severity of livestock worrying from an animal welfare standpoint, as well as the economic toll an attack can have on farming.
Farming has diversified, and therefore the scope of livestock requiring protection has increased. I am delighted that camelids such as alpacas and llamas will now be protected under the Bill. Anyone who has driven down country roads, such as those in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, will know that farmers move livestock. In recognition of that, the Bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place; that will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. As I said in Committee, the legislation puts animal welfare and farmers right at its heart.
Today marks exactly one year since the general election. I am deeply proud and grateful that in my first year as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, I have been able to introduce a Bill in my name that will make a genuine difference both for animal welfare and farmers. This is precisely why I stood for election, and it is testament to the strength of this Parliament that an Opposition Back Bencher can help deliver meaningful change in the law that will have a real and lasting impact.
We should all be able to enjoy the countryside, and there is no finer countryside than in Chester South and Eddisbury. However, that enjoyment comes with a responsibility to preserve and protect it, and to support those who care for it every day: our farming community. The Bill gives us the opportunity to act to protect our countryside, support our farmers and strengthen animal welfare. I hope that Members from all sides of the House will join me in backing it, just as they did in Committee.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on another animal welfare Bill today. As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, it is fantastic to see this legislation brought in by a party that is not in government, with cross-party support. I declare that I am a member of the National Farmers Union food and farming fellowship. I have been fortunate to visit a number of farms across the UK to hear at first hand from farmers from a range of specialities. I can say that the Bill will be fully supported across that community, particularly in Northamptonshire.
The NFU does great work to represent our fantastic farmers, a number of whom I met yesterday at a food event in Northampton as we launched the Northamptonshire good food plan. They spoke of the challenges, particularly of working across borders with the police, because their farms often do not fit within normal police boundaries, and said they want more Government support for the rural economy. The Bill goes some way to helping to achieve that.
I am really pleased to see the expansion of the definitions in the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and the Bill Committee for ensuring that we get that right. In particular, the inclusion of alpacas and llamas is really positive, as we are seeing more and more of them reared in Northamptonshire. It will be positive to continue to review that as farmers diversify into new ways of maintaining food supplies and the environment and ensuring the long-term sustainability of farming. Bills such as this should continue to be adapted and evolved through successive Governments.
I met a farming colleague relatively recently, who told me about a mauling incident that happened on his land. It was shocking to hear about the direct impact on him and his staff who discovered it, and the fact that the police struggled to take action because of the lack of powers to undertake things such as forensics. It is positive that the Bill is increasing the relevant powers, particularly on the capture of DNA from dogs, to ensure that perpetrators can be brought to justice. It is a grim thing that continues to happen year on year, and we must take positive steps to change it.
The Bill is also very well timed. In Northamptonshire, the new police, fire and crime commissioner, Danielle Stone, has recognised that rural crime has been neglected in recent years. She has launched a rural crime survey, and had a number of roundtables and panels with farmers across the county. We now see farming and the protection of rural communities front and centre in her policing action plan. Northamptonshire is home to the largest town in the UK, Northampton, but also acres and acres of beautiful countryside, which is used for both arable farming and rearing herds and growing crops. It is great timing to see the Bill come through before the summer. Not just my police, fire and crime commissioner but police commissioners across England will recognise and support the Bill as a positive step forward.
When I read the Bill and listened to some of the observations in Committee, I found the expansion of the provisions to roads and paths quite interesting. For the record, my uncle is the former president of the Ramblers’ Association, and he repeatedly reminds me of the right to roam campaign whenever I see him at family dos. It is positive that the Bill expands the definition to include roads and paths, because it sets clear requirements when someone accesses land—particularly in somewhere like Northamptonshire, where so many public footpaths run through farmland—to protect farmers and set clear boundaries for those walking their dogs or undertaking more nefarious activities. It is also positive to see the recovery of costs in the Bill. That is a big step forward that will deter people and serve as a reminder to many people who may be impacted by the Bill.
Overall, the Bill takes a really responsible and balanced approach, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury on her work. As we have heard today from the many dog owners in the Chamber, dog owners are generally responsible, but when things go wrong and someone does not take that responsibility seriously, there must be measures in place for the police to step in and farmers to be protected, so I am really pleased to see this Bill. It does not take a heavy-handed approach, as a couple of constituents have written to me about. It strikes the right balance, and I fully commend it and thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for bringing forward this Bill, which is immensely popular with local farmers. I have met with the NFU and its membership repeatedly over months, if not most of the last year, and it is always one of the first things they mention to me. I commend her for her sterling work and for the collegiate way in which she always conducts herself, including in this matter.
It is fantastic that we are extending protection to alpacas and llamas. No one wants to see attacks or worrying, and including both those definitions is really important and strengthens the law appropriately. I am incredibly impressed that the Bill covers paths and roads. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury thinks her constituency is the most beautiful in the country but, of course, it is not even the most beautiful in Cheshire, because mine is better. One of the really beautiful things I did recently was go to Goostrey Rose Festival last weekend. We have new paths in Goostrey and they are used incredibly regularly by dog walkers, but they are on farm boundaries. This legislation is so important for covering paths like those.
I have been on a farm with a family in the aftermath of a dog attack, and it is terrible. I am not here to demonise dog owners—we have so many considerate, sensible, countryside-loving dog owners in my constituency—and I know the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is not either. We are here to make sure that the overwhelming majority of people are left in peace to go about their everyday lives, in both the farming community and the dog-owning community—they are often one and the same—and to make sure that rural crime is properly prosecuted.
GPS theft is another major component of rural crime in my area. Our local police and crime commissioner, Dan Price, has been doing work on this, and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury has been involved in it. It would be great to get an update from the Minister on that.
I want to take a moment to thank the NFU, which has lobbied me extensively on this issue. I am on its food and farming fellowship and have learned a great deal from it. I also thank the farmers in my constituency for continuing to feed us and for looking after the countryside so well.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for bringing it to Parliament.
I want to make some brief remarks about what is sometimes perceived as a tension between those who wish to responsibly enjoy the countryside, and both the economic toll and the harm done to livestock by livestock worrying. Since being elected to this place, I have been a strong champion for expanding responsible access to the countryside across England and Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the Right to Roam campaign.
I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, because this Bill shines a light on the fact that most of us who wish to go into the great outdoors and enjoy our wonderful countryside, whether that is in Cheshire or on the wonderful west Pennine moors in my Bolton West constituency, do so responsibly, but those who do not ensure that their dogs conduct themselves in a considerate manner will feel the wrath of these measures. I particularly welcome that, because there is a balance to be struck between farmers and those who look after livestock in the countryside, and those who want to enjoy our great outdoors.
With that in mind, I want to touch on a couple of points. On extending the provisions to include camelids, there are a number of alpacas and llamas at farms in my constituency, including Smithills open farm. Members may think they look rather incongruous on the great west Pennine moors, but I assure them that they are incredibly popular, both in terms of the opportunity to walk them around the moors and with school visits.
I want to touch on a couple of points that the Minister may pick up on, relating to the opportunities that present themselves, outside the criminal law, to push for greater responsible enjoyment of our countryside, particularly in respect of increasing investment in promoting awareness of the countryside code. I will read out some of the provisions in the code, to make people aware. I think they are principles that everyone in this place can rally around:
“Do not feed livestock, horses or wild animals…do not cause damage or disturbance…leave no trace…always keep dogs under control and in sight…dog poo—bag it and bin it…take your litter home”
and, most importantly, be courteous:
“be nice…share the space”
with others. That should be the golden thread that runs through all our time spent in the countryside.
It is worth me putting on the record that the UK ranks the lowest of 14 European nations with regard to nature connectedness and, out 15 European nations surveyed, the UK is 11th in terms of physical activity. So there is greater work to be done to provide access to nature, but also on enjoying it and breaking down some of the barriers to opportunity.
Nevertheless, I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing forward the Bill. I very much appreciate the concerns she has raised around livestock worrying; she has been a champion for that cause ever since she got elected to this place.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) for praising her daughter in the Chamber. It is very important to praise children. My Aunty Mary, who moved from Newcastle in the blitz to become a schoolteacher just north of here in London, would always emphasise to me how important it was to give children confidence in their abilities and their qualities.
We were talking earlier about dogs and David Hockney, so it would be remiss of me not to mention Elizabeth Blackadder, a very fine printmaker from Glasgow and one of the United Kingdom’s most famous artists. She was a real pioneer in reviving printmaking in Scotland. In Trongate, we have the Glasgow Print Studio. Project Ability currently has an exhibition of art by people who have disabilities and mental health issues. It is a wonderful exhibition. If any Members are going to Glasgow, they should go to that exhibition, because it is absolutely wonderful. It is a beautiful exhibition.
The Bill does not apply to Scotland because it is a criminal matter, and criminal matters are devolved to Scotland in the constitutional settlement, but this is an important issue in Scotland. There has been some discussion about the lack of prosecutions for this sort of offence. It is important that these offences are prosecuted, because farming is an important part of the British economy and the Scottish economy. I know that well because, as a complete townie who gets very uncomfortable if there is a lack of cars and noise, I married into a family of farmers.
My wife’s family were dairy farmers on the Solway firth, which looks over into Cumbria where the Bill will apply and have very important impacts, as sheep farming is very important in Cumbria. I do not think my lovely father-in-law Andrew is particularly impressed with my farming abilities. Helping in the milking parlour did not go very well and apparently the fences I put up were not straight enough. He generally thinks I am incompetent in the farming area. I think now, after 23 years of marriage —it is coming up to our wedding anniversary on 12 July—he thinks I am kind of all right as a husband and a father, but I have not checked this week.
My wife’s aunt and uncle, Elma and Sam, were sheep farmers. Sheep farming is a very difficult way of making money. It is hard work—farming is hard, hard work, whatever kind it is. Farmers have to get up very early to look after the animals; they have to protect the animals and pay for the veterinary bills, and so on. It is a tough job. I do not think we should underestimate how important this Bill will be as a signal that this House supports farmers and takes into account their concerns. These are hard jobs.
Farmers are stewards of the countryside across Britain. Obviously, Glasgow is the most beautiful place in the world, but I would not wish to get into a dispute about where the most beautiful part of Cheshire is, because Cheshire is beautiful. Farmers are an important part of stewarding the countryside across our family of nations, which is so important to us, and this Bill is important for farmers. Farmers are important for the British economy—not just the farms themselves, but our brilliant farmers, who help to supply restaurants and shops, creating the great revival of British cooking and cuisine that we have seen in our lifetimes. So this Bill is very important, and I hope that the Scottish Government look at it carefully and perhaps review the lack of prosecution of these offences.
Now, I should say something of the Bill itself, because it is important. I have covered the important constitutional aspects of it—that it does not cover Scotland—but clause 2 is key. There is limited scope for the police to seize dogs for prolonged periods of time, even when they are causing danger. It is, I am afraid, regrettably common for dogs that have been seized to carry out further attacks pending the trial of their owner. Giving the police the ability to seize dogs for longer periods of time will therefore prevent those repeated attacks. I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for addressing that in clause 2; it is an important provision, and she is quite right to include it.
As a recovering lawyer, I have, at times, had an interest in the investigation of crime. Of course, whatever the legal system, it is necessary to have sufficient evidence, broadly, to convince a judge or a jury to convict someone. Rural crime is particularly difficult in that regard; the reason is self-evident, when we think about it. As a complete townie, it has taken me a bit of time to spot the self-evidence of it.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend consistently refers to himself as a complete townie—a description that I would apply to myself, too. Of course, the fact that we reside in urban areas does not in any way mean that we are unconcerned by the fortunes of our fellow parliamentarians who represent agricultural areas, or indeed their communities, who play a vital role in sustaining us. The importance of food is something I often speak about, for as much as we focus on whatever the leading industry is of the day, society fundamentally comes down to the question of whether we can feed and house ourselves. Covid in particular drove forward the point that the agricultural system in this country is vital.
John Grady
My hon. Friend’s intervention typifies his many thoughtful contributions; he makes an important point.
I think all of us who live in cities—townies, like me—have a great yearning for the countryside. In my constituency, we have Tollcross Park, which is a wonderful park; I recommend that everyone visit it. There is a city farm in the park, which houses llamas and alpacas, to which the provisions of the Bill extend; they are protected by it. I would not want to sully this debate with a political point, but I simply point out that the SNP council regularly threatens to close that farm. Tollcross also has some wonderful rose gardens, which the council does not look after particularly well, which is a real disappointment to my constituents. They are right to be disappointed.
Turning back to the Bill, the investigation of crimes in the countryside is difficult, as there are not lots of people about, there is no CCTV and there are very few witnesses, if any. Clause 3 allows for the collection of forensic evidence, which will be very important in linking the dog to the animal that has been attacked and the owner, and in facilitating the prosecution of these serious crimes and bringing about justice. It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) raised a very important issue.
The improved powers of entry and search in order to look for samples and take impressions from a dog—teeth impressions and so on, I assume—are very important too; again, they make investigation of these crimes easier. It is important that we investigate and prosecute the crimes; if we do not, the law will just sit on the statute book unenforced, ignored and otiose. If we do not have the enforcement mechanisms, we are wasting our time in the House, so the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is right to include them in the Bill. We do not want to waste our time; everyone in this House agrees that cracking down on these terrible crimes is very important.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill deals with roads and paths. Having helped my father-in-law on many occasions, utterly incompetently, with things like moving animals around—somewhat like my career in the petrochemical industry, when I put diesel in the unleaded car, it was not something I was cut out for— I know that animals can be attacked and worried on roads and paths. It is also right that attacking livestock is dealt with differently from worrying livestock.
I have probably said enough about the Bill, but let me say finally that I am pleased that camelids are to be protected by it. Llamas and alpacas are beautiful animals. As I mentioned, we have them in the Tollcross city farm; they are well worth a visit. The Bill recognises innovation in Britain’s agricultural sector, as it looks to move to new products. Of course, alpacas and llamas are not just important as animals, but a good source of very fine wool for clothes. Anyone who has been to Peru will probably have been approached on a number of occasions to buy an alpaca jumper; they have lovely soft wool. It is important that we extend these protections to that important innovation in the farming industry.
I cannot speak highly enough of the Bill, or of the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing such an excellent, well-drafted piece of legislation to the House.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Like everyone who has spoken so far, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Much like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), Crawley is an urban constituency. On the plus side, I suppose that means I get to avoid the bunfight over who has the best rural constituency—we undoubtedly have the greatest urban constituency.
We are not necessarily known for our farms in Crawley—we have fairly tight boundaries around the town—but people are often surprised to find that we do have them, because the safeguarded land between the urban area of the town and the airport is currently only usable as agricultural land. We are not allowed to build anything else there. I need to take that up with Ministers in due course, in order to try to release it for much-needed economic and housing space.
Phil Brickell
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to have farms in built-up settings in order to give a connection to people who perhaps do not have the good fortune of being able to get out into the countryside, to enable them to understand how crucial farming is to this country and also, frankly, so that they may enjoy livestock in a responsible manner?
Peter Lamb
I agree with my hon. Friend. Having any form of green space in close proximity is vital psychologically. We will be discussing the space industry soon, and research undertaken by those in the space industry shows the huge psychological boost that people get from being close to green spaces.
It is worth bearing in mind that farming is not necessarily the best representation of natural England. When we in this place talk about housing development, I worry because all too often people become obsessed with the notion that England is supposed to be a land of rolling green fields. The reality is that this country was densely forested, and substantial amounts of biodiversity have been removed to make viable areas that are now open green fields. In the Government’s housing programme, we should look at such areas as brownfield land, on the basis that they are not what natural England is supposed to look like. In many cases, new housing developments will have greater levels of biodiversity.
None the less, integrating farming alongside other forms of industry is an important part of developing well-rounded communities. I am familiar with such farms, in part because when I was a member of West Sussex county council many years ago—not enough years ago, given my experience of being a county councillor—we bought one of those farms. It was viewed as a fantastic idea, on the basis that the land would in due course be developed into a runway and we would make an absolute killing out of it. I regret to say that even if the development consent order came through right now, it would still be farmland, and it is not the site of the proposed runway. That is another of the county’s investments that has not really played out as planned.
John Grady
The National Wealth Fund, which the Government are focusing on—building, to be fair, on work done by the previous Administration—has a real focus on helping local authorities to make sensible investments. Does my hon. Friend agree that given the various sagas that we have seen—Thurrock and solar, for example, or interest rate swaps by Hammersmith and Fulham back in the day—that is a very sensible objective for the National Wealth Fund?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) will, I am sure, be speaking to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill.
Peter Lamb
I am fighting my way back to it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to address my hon. Friend’s point, having been a local authority leader for quite some time, I understand the pressures on councils to make such investments if their income is being reduced in other ways. Clearly, however, many lessons have had to be learned. I hope that the fund will provide opportunities to use public money far better.
If Members will please allow me to get back to the substance of the Bill, I will proceed with all due haste. My constituency is surrounded by fields, and consequently the provisions that affect those areas also affect my constituents. We have livestock in the constituency, particularly in the nature centre in one of the town’s main parks. It has just been rebranded as Tilgate zoo, but for a long time it was the nature and rare breeds centre, where I have spent many happy hours in various capacities. It is where I got married; that was a high point. It is where I was bitten by a turkey at the age of two; that was a low point. I am sure it all balances out in the long run.
I am afraid we do not have any alpacas or llamas, although I would love us to get some. We are supposed to be rolling out different country exhibits as time goes on. I am reminded that alpacas and llamas are no laughing matter. The Inca empire never developed the wheel; the entire empire was built off the back of alpacas and llamas. As such, they are worthy of great respect.
What we did have, however, was sheep and cows, but some pretty harrowing things happened to the livestock at the nature centre. In one case, a sheep was set on fire while it was still alive. Although the Bill does not directly deal with that, the mentality behind the disrespect of such animals is worthy of note. Far more often, dogs have been set on the animals, or at least people have not been in control of their dogs. We eventually had to remove the sheep entirely from the publicly accessible areas.
In fact, we went a bit further than that, because the local authority owns the park. We also had a problem around the main lake, where we kept finding that cygnets and baby ducklings were being mauled by dogs that had come off leash. We took the decision to implement a public space protection order, mandating all dog owners to keep their dogs on leads in those areas to try to reduce the risk to other animals. I will be honest and say that it was not well received. We are re-consulting on it now, but I suspect it probably still will not be desperately well received.
The big problem around these issues is that people love their dogs, and they think their dog could never possibly do anything wrong. I am certain that they are right about that in the overwhelming majority of cases, but there will always be situations where an owner will not be in control, something will happen and others pay the price—people are put at risk or we lose animals. Despite having voluntary provisions in these areas, experiences show that these are insufficient to the task of requiring people to keep their dogs under control. The provisions needs to cover all the cases; they cannot just deal with the odd exception.
It is really important that the Bill puts in place provisions to enable the police to take appropriate action to monitor, investigate and resolve situations where livestock have been affected. But it is not just about putting provisions in place. We have a habit sometimes of producing regulations but not allocating resource, and if we do not allocate the resource, we do not actually produce any better outcomes. A big concern of mine is that if we create laws that we do not then enforce, we encourage lawlessness in the long run. We should have sufficient regulation that we are capable of enforcing and are prepared to enforce in order to maintain the value and meaning of the law to our constituents.
This issue is not just about animal welfare. While it is tragic when incidents occur than affect livestock, it is a fundamentally a matter of economics as well—the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. This is an industry; these are people’s livelihoods, and as we are well aware from debates in this place over the last year, they operate on extremely tight margins, and these people cannot afford the kind of losses that this abuse can cause.
It is important that there are systems of regulation in place to enable the industry to operate effectively into the future, because this is not simply about what happens to the industry; agriculture is a matter of national security for all of us. As an island, we have had to learn this lesson many times. As a country, we have always had to import some food from overseas, and there has always been trade. As far back as the neolithic age, we imported a certain amount of herring from Scandinavia. We saw very clearly in world war two the impact on society as a whole when U-boats were able to disrupt the trade system with the empire and convoys and sailors had to put their lives at risk to ensure that people would survive. This country made efforts at the time, with campaigns encouraging people to grown their own food, and efforts have been made since to try to create a large-enough agricultural sector in the United Kingdom so that we will always be able to feed our population. The development of buffer stock systems over the wars ensured that market fluctuations did not drive people out of business, and they continue to operate on some level to this day.
The impact on our national security was driven home to us during covid, when those who were working throughout the food distribution sector were designated as key workers. It is regrettable that we as a society have rowed back from realising that people in these logistical and retail roles play a far more fundamental role in our day-to-day ability to survive than many of the roles that we choose to promote in society. Ultimately, we need laws that are going to support those in this industry to thrive. In summary, I agree with the proposals in the Bill—and I have attempted to get through my speech at the fastest possible pace to make that point.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for introducing the Bill, which has enjoyed wide support from Members across the House.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reminded us of the need to keep control of dogs on paths and country lanes. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) stressed the importance of these improved protections for her farmers, as they are for farmers in Somerset. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) emphasised the need for responsible access to the countryside, about which I agree. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) told us about the need for strengthened police powers.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) took us on a gentle country ramble in his speech, and told us that his constituency is entirely urban and he knows little of farming. Let me tell him not to worry, because he is clearly eminently qualified to be Labour’s next Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—he could scarcely know less or do worse than the current incumbent.
I pay tribute to those groups that have long championed this reform. They include the National Sheep Association, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare.
As I have already mentioned once today, Britain is a nation of animal lovers and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of further improving Britain’s world-leading position on animal welfare. This Bill follows in that proud tradition, because livestock worrying is a blight on our countryside and a blight on our farmers. In a recent survey by the National Sheep Association, 87% of respondents said they had experienced a dog attack on their livestock in the past 12 months. One in 20 of those respondents said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such attacks, which is truly appalling.
These attacks cause distress and injury to livestock and, in the most extreme cases, they can cause the death of animals. That is not only traumatic for farmers, but it can be expensive too. NFU Mutual data shows that insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023. Farmers have enough to worry about with this Government’s new family farm tax, without the additional burden of attacks on their livestock by dogs.
The Bill makes several improvements to existing law. First, it introduces a vital distinction between livestock worrying and attacking. This change will help to strengthen enforcement where serious harm has occurred. Clause 2 expands police powers to seize dogs they reasonably expect to have been involved in such offences. This important amendment helps to close existing legal loopholes and ensures swift police action to prevent further harm.
Clause 3 empowers police and veterinary professionals to take samples or impressions from wounded animals or suspected dogs to aid criminal investigations. This change will make it significantly easier to gather evidence and bring charges. The National Farmers Union has rightly championed the measure, noting that many livestock worrying incidents go unreported due to a lack of confidence in enforcement. The possibility of using DNA testing could be a game changer for successful prosecutions, and I urge the Government to support further research and work with police forces to implement the results.
Clause 4 allows officers with a warrant to search properties for dogs believed to be involved in an attack. This is a crucial power to ensure justice is served and will help end the widespread perception among farmers that little can be done once an attack occurs. Another major improvement is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the legislation’s scope. Livestock are often moved between fields using country lanes. Under current rules, if an animal is attacked outside a field, the burden unfairly falls on the farmer. This Bill corrects that and rightly places responsibility on dog owners to always control their pets near livestock.
The Bill broadens the definition of livestock to include camelids, such as alpacas and llamas, which are increasingly part of rural enterprises. I particularly welcome that clause, especially on behalf of establishments such as the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow, in my constituency.
The Bill introduces many essential enforcement powers that will allow our police to crack down on worrying, but we must not forget about prevention. Responsible dog ownership is key. The previous Government’s working group brought together police, stakeholders and welfare organisations to improve education on how to keep pets and livestock safe. In Wales, a 64% drop in livestock worrying incidents between 2023 and 2024 has been credited to outreach campaigns, dog training courses and effective rural crime teams. We must continue to amplify educational messages such as those in the country code. I call on the Government to make sure they continue that vital work and to look at how we might further encourage responsible dog ownership.
My constituency has a large farming community, and I have seen at first hand the impact of livestock worrying on my constituents. I recently met Austen Lockyer, who farms in my constituency. He told me that he struggles when irresponsible owners allow their dogs off leads on public footpaths through his fields, treating them like recreation grounds and worrying his sheep. I know the Bill will be a comfort to him and those like him and that we are acting to shift the burden of responsibility to dog owners.
I am pleased to have supported the Bill since it was introduced and through Committee, and it is a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box and confirm that the Opposition support the Bill in full. I urge colleagues from all parties to support the Bill and to bring an end to the scourge of livestock worrying in rural communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a privilege to speak on Third Reading. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for taking the Bill through the House.
I really was not going to get party political on this day of unity when we were all in so much agreement. However, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), has prompted me to do so, and who am I to turn away such an invitation? It is marvellous that he thinks the Bill is such a good idea and that he is fully supportive of it. I say gently to him that his party had 14 years in which to support Bills like this and the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill that we debated earlier. It was quite interesting to hear him try to defend the previous Government’s record at DEFRA—we all know that every single river, lake and sea was filled with sewage. I am more than happy to discuss the record of the previous Government.
I will return to my tone of unity. I thank everyone who contributed to getting the Bill to Third Reading and everyone who was involved in Committee. I have been briefed on how much support the Bill was shown in Committee, so I thank all Members from across the House for their work in that.
I thank the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for mentioning his membership of the NFU food and farming fellowship and the support of the NFU. I completely agree with him on the difference that capturing dogs’ DNA will make to enforcement. It is important that that is adopted and developed. I am tempted back into getting political again: I agree with my hon. Friend that rural crime was neglected for 14 years under the previous Government, but we are starting to take it more seriously.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for engaging frequently with the NFU and representing its views, as well as those of farmers across her constituency. I agree with her that it is important that the Bill covers paths and roads as well. I will not get involved in the debate on which is the most beautiful constituency. How could I, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you and I know that Yorkshire is God’s own country? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for talking about responsible access to the countryside. When we enjoying the beauty of nature, it is crucial that we all obey the countryside code. I hope that all Members promote the code across their constituencies.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the bagging and binning of dog poo. That reminds me of when I attended the Filey folk festival and one of the most amusing songs I have heard for a long time, which was about the dog poo tree. The song was dedicated to all those people who go on a walk, collect their dog’s poo in a dog poo bag, and then hang the bag on the dog poo tree at the end of the walk. It reminds us all to not just bag it, but take it away with us.
Mike Reader
On that point, I went to the Hardingstone village fair this weekend—I had a pop-up surgery. I want to thank the constituent who came to tell me about the dog poo epidemic in Hardingstone. She asked, “What’s the Government going to do to help?” I confirmed that we will make sure that councils have the power to address this issue, and that I will raise it with West Northamptonshire council to make sure that it takes action. It is clearly impacting residents in the village of Hardingstone.
Emma Hardy
I completely agree that it is incredibly unpleasant. As always, it is only a minority of people who fail to take away their dog’s poo.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for the tip on visiting the beautiful print art in Glasgow. I hope that his father-in-law is impressed by his support for this Bill, if not by his ability as a farmer. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his 23rd wedding anniversary on 12 July.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) talked about the psychological boost that we get when we are near nature. He is completely right. It is such a positive feeling to be out in the wild. I always talk to my local Yorkshire wildlife group about the importance of “tangle”; where some people see mess, others see biodiversity and nature. We get the most nature where there is a tangle of different plants growing; we get very little on a mowed lawn. We get nature where we see weeds, different habitats, and different areas for species to grow and develop. I am convinced that this is a reason not to do as much gardening; we are then supporting biodiversity and the need for tangle. Members have also mentioned the importance of planting more forest and talked about how we can raise the amount of biodiversity on our new estates, all of which I completely agree with.
Sarah Russell
The Minister mentions forests. I want to congratulate Trees for Congleton, which has just planted its 30,000th tree in Congleton. It set out a few years ago to plant one tree for every citizen in the town, and it has achieved that. I think that is quite remarkable.
Emma Hardy
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Trees for Congleton. Thirty thousand trees is an incredible achievement, and let us hope it keeps going.
The number of livestock kept in the UK has nearly doubled since the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 was passed, and there has been a large increase in dog ownership. The National Sheep Association’s 2025 survey indicates that 96% of respondents have experienced between one and 10 incidents of sheep worrying in the last 12 months. That highlights the urgent need to modernise the legislation in order to address this issue. On average, respondents reported four sheep deaths per year due to sheep worrying by dogs—an increase on previous years—and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack. These figures do not account for miscarriages of lambs, or for the other secondary impacts of livestock worrying.
The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can have devastating outcomes and result in injury or death, which can have a detrimental impact on farmers. Livestock worrying can also have wider implications, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds being smothered. That demonstrates how harmful such incidents can be. It is clear that we need stronger measures to attack livestock worrying and the devastating effects on farmers and livestock, and this Bill will deliver these measures.
The Government recognise the distress that livestock worrying can cause animals and their keepers. All reported crime must be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts, so that perpetrators receive the appropriate penalties. This Bill amends the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which underpins livestock worrying offences and enforcement, and I will summarise the three main areas that the Bill will address before going into more detail on the measures.
The Bill will primarily focus on three areas. It will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly found. It will strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs, and the collection of evidence, to improve enforcement, and as a deterrent, it will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. Those three key areas will strengthen the legislation and deterrence around livestock worrying and attacks on livestock.
The Bill will broaden the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths. Dogs and dog walkers are commonly found walking on roads and paths, and this new measure will help to protect livestock when they are being moved—for instance, cows going into a milking parlour, or sheep being moved across the fields. That is an important new protection.
The Bill will extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. The British Alpaca Society estimates that there might be as many as 45,000 alpacas owned by members in England, and a further 20,000 owned by non-members.
The Bill will also amend the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. “Attacking” is 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.
The new police powers will be a huge help to the police. The primary focus of the Bill is to strengthen those powers to enable the police to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. They include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Furthermore, in a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association in 2025, 98% of respondents agreed that there was an urgent need for additional police powers—it is generally unheard of to get 98% of people to agree on something.
The police can currently only seize a dog found or suspected to have worried livestock for the purpose of identifying the owner. The police have limited powers at their disposal to address reoffending when the same dog is found attacking livestock repeatedly, or the same owner has several dogs that worry livestock. Under this Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again, they have the power to seize and detain the dog. The dog can be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. We hope this power will address the issue of reoffending and dog owners who disregard the law, and will help to address the most serious instances of livestock worrying.
The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that sample or impression might provide evidence of an offence. The sample or impression could then be used as evidence to support a prosecution. Samples may be retained until either the police investigation into a potential offence has finished or court proceedings have finished or been withdrawn.
Finally, the Bill will extend the powers of entry. Under current legislation, the police can enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog owner. The reasons for extending the power of entry in relation to this offence is to ensure that the police can collect the necessary evidence to prosecute these crimes. The Bill will extend police powers to allow the police to enter and search a premises, with a warrant, to seize and take samples from a dog if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. The expanded powers of entry will allow the police to seize items that may be evidence of an offence—for example, a dog collar, or a towel with blood on it.
These powers are important for improving the conviction rate and reducing the prevalence of reoffending, so that we protect our respected farmers from the horrific consequence of livestock worrying. In the light of our improvements to enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying more effectively, we hope that livestock owners or bystanders will feel encouraged to report more incidents, and will know that the reports will be taken seriously.
The Bill will also increase penalties. The penalty is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will determine an appropriate fine amount, in line with sentencing guidelines, that takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The courts can already impose a compensation order on an offender, requiring them to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence. Compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence, including any representations made by the offender or prosecutor. There is no limit on the value of a single compensation order handed down to an offender, and the Bill will not change that.
A survey carried out by the National Farmers Union in 2025 found that in England, the midlands was the worst-hit region by cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £425,000. It was followed by the south-east, where the cost is an estimated £225,000. Farm animals in the south-east of England worth an estimated £139,000 were severely injured or killed in dog attacks in 2024. That is up 23% on the previous year. Furthermore, the National Sheep Association found that more than half of all respondents felt that increased fines, punishment and seizure powers would reduce sheep worrying incidents.
Of course, many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. Dog owners have a responsibility to ensure that their dogs are kept safe and under control. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. It says that visitors should always check local signs, as there are locations where they must keep their dog on a lead for part or all of the year. We recognise that there is a careful balance to be struck between protecting the wider public and their livestock from dog attacks, the freedom that people enjoy when they are walking their dogs, and, of course, the welfare of those dogs, including their freedom to exhibit normal behaviours.
The new police powers that the Bill will introduce will ensure an effective response to reported cases. They are vital measures that will help improve enforcement and protect the livelihoods of our valuable farming communities. Countryside access came up. The Bill would cover a scenario in which the person in charge of the dog caused it to attack livestock that had strayed on to a road or path. The 1953 Act protects livestock that may have strayed from one field to another if it is agricultural land as defined in the Act, subject to certain exemptions and offences.
The countryside code encourages people to check local signs and leave gates as they find them. The public right of way guidance highlights the responsibility of landowners regarding waymarking and signs, including the responsibility to use signs to warn people of dangers that are not obvious. The welfare of livestock is the responsibility of the owner, and they must take necessary measures to protect their livestock. Owners of livestock should of course take reasonable care to see that their livestock do not stray. There is a common law duty on anyone who keeps animals in a field next to a road to take reasonable care to prevent their escape, in order to avoid damage. This private Member’s Bill focuses on delivering the greatest impact by improving the police’s powers to investigate and support convictions.
Let me say, in answer to a question asked, that it will not be an offence to fail to report an incident. We would always encourage dog walkers to be responsible in such circumstances by bringing an incident to the attention of the livestock owner and the police, so that the owner can ensure that the injured livestock can receive the care or treatment they need. That is important for welfare reasons. It would be difficult to enforce a legal reporting requirement.
On other species being protected, sheep are specifically protected from dogs at large because they are most susceptible to distress in the presence of dogs, and are prone to abort their young when distressed. Primary legislation could be considered in future to add other species if necessary. That point was raised by one of my hon. Friends. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock, and we would encourage this practice to ensure that dogs and walkers are kept safe.
It is important to note that the Bill will not amend section 1(2A) of the 1953 Act, which sets out an exemption to section 1(2)(c) for guide dogs. Owners of a guide dog will remain exempt from criminal liability if their guide dog is at large in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. However, the offence of chasing or attacking livestock applies to guide dogs, and the owner of the guide dog would be committing an offence if the dog chased or attacked livestock. Ultimately, it remains for the courts to decide what can be considered a guide dog.
I recognise the strong public support for animal welfare in this country, as reflected in the volume of correspondence received by my Department and the sustained engagement from stakeholders. Key stakeholders, including the livestock and farming sector, the animal welfare sector, the police and the veterinary sector, have been engaged in respect of these measures.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I apologise to the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for being late; I had hoped to be here earlier.
The Minister talked about the importance of animal welfare to people up and down the country, not least in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Will she give us a flavour of when the Government will publish our animal welfare strategy?
Emma Hardy
I hate to give my hon. Friend the parliamentary answer “in due course”, but he will have to forgive me.
As illustrated by the two Bills we have taken through the House this morning and the actions we have taken in our first year, we are very committed to animal welfare, which is of huge importance to the country. As we heard in the previous debate, we are a nation of animal lovers. We will not revisit the names of all our pets, but we genuinely have a kind and caring nature. One of my favourite events in Parliament is when we have the cats and dogs of Westminster competitions, which are more fiercely fought than some by-elections.
The depth of concern about this issue has been evident in today’s debate. The Government are fully committed to supporting this important Bill as it progresses through the other place. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans to improve animal welfare in a generation. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key animal welfare stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare, demonstrating our commitment to improving animal welfare across the board, and the Prime Minister has committed to publish an animal welfare strategy later this year—or “in due course”.
I thank all Members across the House for their support, engagement and constructive comments. Once again, I am also grateful for the support from farmers, welfare stakeholders, police and others who welcome the Bill. This Bill will have a lasting impact for those affected by livestock worrying, and I am delighted to support it. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call Aphra Brandreth to wind up the debate.
Aphra Brandreth
With the leave the House, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the majority of her remarks? Of course, we disagree about the Conservative record on animal welfare, but I thank her for her personal support and that of the Government for the Bill.
I would like to thank to a number of people who have contributed to this legislation. The Bill commenced its journey in the last Parliament as a private Member’s Bill under the sponsorship of Baroness Coffey, and it is fitting that she has expressed her intent to take the Bill through the other place. I am grateful for her support and wish to put on the record my sincere thanks.
I thank again all Members who have been involved in and spoken during the passage of the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues, and I am incredibly grateful for their involvement. I also want to acknowledge the contributions made today that rightly emphasise that the Bill is not about targeting dog owners. I am a dog lover myself, and I know that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible and care deeply about animal welfare, whether it is dogs, sheep or, indeed, alpacas. The Bill is about ensuring that we can all enjoy the countryside responsibly.
I thank the team in the Public Bill Office and at DEFRA who have worked so hard to progress the Bill. I also thank my brilliant, very hard-working team for all their help, and particularly Joel Hetherington for his invaluable support.
Finally, I thank the farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury who have shared their experiences with me. Their insights into the devastating impact of attacks and the difficulties of securing prosecutions under the current law have been invaluable in shaping the legislation. It really has been a team effort, and the difference we can make as a result of this Bill will be felt across farming communities. It is for them that we have brought this legislation forward, and I could not be prouder to have played my part in delivering it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Monday 7th July 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberDogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)