Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.