Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Friday 5th September 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberDogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, that was a helpful debate about animal welfare, and one with which I am familiar. It is good to have seen so many people here in the House to hear it, especially with the news that not just one but two Government Ministers are resigning today.
Livestock worrying is an issue of significant concern for farmers and rural communities. It causes much distress and cost to animals and farmers. It is already an offence through the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but the police have sought greater powers to more effectively detect and enable the prosecution of such offences. That is why I bring forward to your Lordships’ House this Bill to modernise the said Act.
I start by congratulating Aphra Brandreth for seeing this through the House of Commons in her first year as an MP. I am already familiar with the Bill, as I navigated it through the Commons last year with the assistance of my noble friend Lord Hart, who was then Chief Whip. He will be making his maiden speech during this debate; I look forward to listening to it. Unfortunately, the Bill ran out of time just ahead of the general election in 2024. That is why I thank the Defra Ministers, who have recognised how important the passage of this Bill is. Candidly, they will be much thanked by farmers for doing so. I thank the Defra officials for their help too. I know that they have been working on this for some time—frankly, for several years. We are nearly there.
In essence, this Bill is an attempt at something of a simplification of the 1953 Act with some important updates, which are delivered through the Schedule in addition to the clauses. The Bill extends the area covered beyond the land to a road or path, to address attacks where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides powers of entry and search through warrant and allows dogs to be detained to avoid further attacks while an owner is awaiting trial for such an offence. It allows for more modern ways to gather evidence from a dog, including taking dental impressions and other relevant samples, and it also updates the fines that can be imposed. The Bill will include camelids—alpacas and llamas—in the definition of “livestock” for the purposes of the 1953 Act.
Clause 1(a) gives effect to the Schedule, which brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence. As anybody who has ever been to a farm with livestock knows, livestock do not sit in one field all their lives; they are moved around. We need to ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock as they are moved. That simplifies the situation. It not only makes it clear that dogs should be under the control of their owner or the person walking them, but gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions in Clause 1 ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog rather than those costs falling on the police.
The effect of Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, as animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. This modest extension is an important element of Clause 1. Other jurisdictions have tried to cover every animal under the sun. Rather than doing that, these modest extensions are ultimately about keeping the Bill and the Act in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned with the safety of their animals.
Clause 2 updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. This is split into two areas: dogs found without their owner or person in charge, and dogs considered to be posing a continuing threat. For the latter, new Section 2(8) is explicit:
“A constable may seize a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that … the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and … unless it is detained, there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again”.
The overall effect of the new section is to make it more straightforward for police to be able to grab a suspected dog in order to stop such behaviour happening and avoid the potential impact on livestock, without having to go to court or wait until an owner is convicted of an offence.
Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up to date about getting evidence—for example, in taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. From discussions with the police, I anticipate that most sampling should be quite straightforward, but a more detailed examination of a dog may be required at times in order to establish the connection to a specific incident. If it is deemed that it would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately.
Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search for an application to a justice of the peace. Frankly, there have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog but then they do not; the dog simply disappears, never to be seen again. The clause basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied in order to ensure that evidence can be seized quickly.
Clause 5 covers the extent, commencement, transitional provision and Short Title. The Act will automatically come into force after three months after the day it is passed. That avoids the need for any further regulations, which I believe is a good deregulatory approach in primary legislation.
I turn to the parts of the Schedule that I have not already addressed. Paragraph 1(6) amends Section 1(4) of the 1953 Act and talks about attacking or worrying, which ensures that the Bill covers what it is supposed to. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Attacking is legally part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that attacking is distinct from worrying better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. To give a simplified view, this covers a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig directly, and many other animals that come under the terminology of livestock, as well as the sort of behaviour like running around these animals, which can cause distress and severe consequences, such as aborting. There is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff.
We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack—direct contact with the animal by the dog—but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed. To be clear, though, this provision is not creating a new offence; it is clarifying the language throughout the Act. In effect, both attacking and worrying are already covered in the 1953 Act, but that is not clear throughout.
We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across the country. Your Lordships will be aware of some awful attacks that have happened around the country. Farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact and, frankly, too many people are often in denial about that. It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. Their owners may have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose causing such disruption.
People already have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all farmers or shepherds want to do that. They want the owners to be responsible. That is why I am keen to ensure that the deterrent is sufficiently strong. In the current Act, the fine is capped at a maximum of £1,000. That will go up to an unlimited amount, which reflects the need for an effective deterrent. The reason why it is unlimited—it has become the trend in legislation to use the phrase “unlimited amount”—is that it is far more straightforward in practical terms to have an unlimited amount so that the Sentencing Council and the local courts can make the fine relevant to the impact and severity of the offence.
I hope noble Lords realise that the Bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail in the clauses, and that is often the case when we are trying to amend other legislation, but I believe that these modest and, I hope, sensible changes will be important for our farmers and for the animals for which they care. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank my constituency MP, the newly elected Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, Aphra Brandreth, and the newly ennobled noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for drawing up this simple amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It modernises the law on worrying livestock, which causes such distress to pasture animals, costing farmers and land managers often sizeable amounts to their livelihoods. I declare my interest as a dairy farmer in the rural constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury.
I want to draw attention to two important measures in the Bill. First, it includes a new offence of not keeping a dog on a fixed lead in an enclosed area—for example, a field that contains livestock. The presence of a dog in a field is immediately noticed by livestock. This can range from curiosity to anxiety, which the dog will also be aware of. While it may seem overly prescriptive, even a meandering dog with no ill intent can cause livestock to bolt, with serious consequences. In addition, the dog can introduce serious diseases such as neospora to cattle, causing abortion. This is becoming an ever more costly consequence to food producers.
The other important feature that I draw attention to is the measure increasing the maximum fine to an unlimited amount, hence allowing penalties to keep up with inflation and provide an effective deterrent into the future without the need for constant pressure to revise what soon becomes insignificant as years pass. I have confidence that appropriate fines will be levied by magistrates. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that guidance will be issued along with any necessary regulations, so that constant revisions can be avoided?
There are an estimated 34,000 incidents of livestock worrying in England and Wales. There are many other updated features to the Bill, such as requiring police to keep a register of dogs seized and extensions to animals being newly farmed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing the Bill. Securing parliamentary time for measures is always difficult to achieve, leading often to more wide-ranging, generic pieces of legislation that can become bogged down in more controversial and contentious amendments, so I welcome a Bill that can make necessary incisive improvements to specific circumstances, making more assured progress.
The Minister in the other place, Daniel Zeichner, clarified many aspects of the 1953 Act, including how this Bill will apply to guide dogs. I am grateful to him and to my noble friend the Minister in your Lordships’ House for the Government’s support for the measure. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hart, and wish the Bill to pass unamended in your Lordships’ House and become law without delay.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for bringing the Bill to the House.
I am sure all of us have enjoyed the TV programme “One Man and His Dog” or marvelled at the skill of sheepdogs and shepherds working with very mobile and awkward animals such as sheep, but, historically and in evolutionary terms, the main predators for hooved animals, whether they be ovine, bovine or cervine, have been and are canids, notably wolves, from which of course our domestic dog is derived, so dogs and livestock are uneasy bedfellows—or should I say “field fellows”? In fact, most human fatalities from cattle are a result of dogs alarming the cattle, which all too sadly highlights the potential dangers.
Livestock worrying and attacking is a terrible problem, particularly in sheep. Dogs not under proper control cause panic, miscarriages of pregnant animals, often horrific injuries and death. Sometimes, sadly, farmers have to shoot their own sheep, in humane acts to relieve their suffering, or shoot the responsible dogs, which is equally distressing.
The majority of these incidents involve unaccompanied dogs—I will come back to that in a minute. The National Police Chiefs’ Council recorded 1,700 incidents between 2013 and 2017, with over 900 livestock killed and over 600 injured, as well as 92 incidents when dogs were shot. Those incidents have been rising: a 2025 survey by the National Sheep Association showed that 87% of its respondent farmers reported at least one sheep worrying incident in the last 12 months. The worst such incident resulted in the death of 44 sheep. From an earlier NSA survey in 2021, we know that the financial losses from a single incident of sheep worrying and attacks can be as high as £50,000. The average cost to each survey respondent was estimated at more than £1,500 per farm per year. Finally, NFU Mutual calculates that the total cost of dog attacks on farm animals in 2024 was more than £1.8 million. In summary, these events can cause great suffering to animals and great distress to farmers, dog owners and landowners, as well as substantial financial loss.
I strongly support the measures in this Bill. Perhaps the most significant that I want to pick out are the measures in Clauses 2 and 3, which give police the power to seize and detain suspect dogs and take samples, including DNA for analysis. Given that the majority of incidents involve unaccompanied dogs, these measures, and the powers of identification inherent in DNA analysis, should substantially increase the ability of the police to identify the responsible dogs and their owners, link them to a particular incident and bring appropriate charges. It is often the case that repeat offenders cause these incidents, so these sorts of powers should help enormously to prevent such repeat offences.
I am very supportive of the measures in the Bill, without reservation—but while I welcome the Bill, legislation is but one way in which to approach this problem. Essentially this is a problem of irresponsible dog ownership or a lack of awareness and knowledge on the part of some dog owners. A great deal can be and is being done by way of information and education to the public and dog owners to reduce the incidence of the problem. The NFU, in collaboration with the Kennel Club, provides free signage for farmers and other landowners to warn the public of specific risks or dangers to livestock, their dog or themselves—and the risks of abortion pathogens such as Neospora.
Let us hope that more information and public education, together with the strengthened legislation provided in this Bill, will significantly reduce this shocking problem.
Lord Hart of Tenby (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on getting this legislation to the House. Not a lot of people know this, but she and I first met back in 2007, when we were doing our candidate selection course at a hotel in Milton Keynes. Ever since then, she has been a most wonderful parliamentary friend—and, as everybody here already knows, her career has advanced further, faster and more successfully than I could ever have dreamed that mine would. I thank her for the friendship that she has shown.
In the same breath, I extend my thanks to Black Rod, the clerks and the doorkeepers for their patience and good will since I came here just a few weeks ago. Having been away from the Palace of Westminster for a year, when I returned I wondered whether everything would be just the same and what changes I could expect. As with all good institutions, when I got here I realised that all the things that were important have not changed at all—and I thank everyone for making sure that that is the case and continues to be so.
To the noble Lords, Lord Brady and Lord Hunt, I give huge thanks for their support when I came here. Both have given me advice over many years, both in the Commons and here, and I hope very much to continue to tap into that advice as time goes by.
I did not realise that this was going to happen today, but I am particularly honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in this debate. For some time, in all the different aspects of animal welfare legislation that has come before this House and the other place over the years, I always felt that we lacked a sufficient veterinary input and were short of vets. I am glad to see that we now have many more vets than we once did; we have gone from nought to two in the House of Commons, which probably counts as progress. One of the reasons I always thought we needed more vets in these debates is to make the important distinction that the noble Lord made just now between suffering and cruelty: suffering can be measured and cruelty is generally subjective. In my previous existence, there was an adage that we preferred our evidence to be vetted rather than doctored. At least we know now that when the legislation comes before this House and the other place, it is going to be vetted to the highest possible standard.
Students of Wikipedia might have noticed that I have only one claim to fame in an otherwise uninteresting political career: I am the only Secretary of State for Wales to have been born in Wolverhampton. This is not something I made much of when I was in the Wales Office, as noble Lords might understand, but I am very proud of my West Midlands roots. My mother put it down to a medical emergency rather than a geographical preference, but I am quite happy with that entry.
That is where that bit ended. All my working life has been spent in west Wales, in Pembrokeshire, which is known to many people here. My wife’s family farm there, my children were born there and I was the MP for a bit of the county of Pembrokeshire for 14 and a half years. The county is steeped in agriculture, tourism, energy production and, luckily for me, cricket and the countryside, two things that have occupied much of my life.
Those interests have led me to some interesting places; they led me to being able to become both the chief executive and chair of the Countryside Alliance for seven to 10 years. In that role I met so many Members of this House and the House of Commons, including the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Not a lot of people know this, but he and I were crammed in the back of a Land Rover for six months in 1999 on the instructions of Jack Straw in his pursuit of evidence to support the Burns inquiry into hunting. That inquiry was a fascinating tour of all the most wonderful, interesting and beautiful places, and started with the Blencathra Foxhounds. It was the most interesting journey in terms of its geography and the knowledge we both obtained. It is why I entered politics, how I entered government and why I went to the Wales Office and ultimately became Chief Whip for Rishi Sunak.
To finish, I will return to the animal welfare theme. We should probably all admit that the statute book is littered with examples of very well-meaning but not necessarily effective pieces of animal welfare legislation. There is a reason for that and a reason why Governments seem to be hesitant sometimes: either the proposals go far too far or they do not go far enough, so we end up with either a fudge or an ambush. I really hope that the current Government, whatever their ambitions for animal welfare and the countryside might include, will realise that you simply cannot separate different aspects of rural Britain—whether fishing, farming, field sports or forestry—because they are as one. Previous Governments have learned painful lessons from trying to segregate different elements of rural activity.
The good news is that the legislation before the House today is not one of those moments; it is something around which all residents of the countryside—whether farmers, livestock managers, politicians or anybody from any side of the political spectrum—can unite. I very much hope to be able to support this and other legislation of a similar nature going forward.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Countryside Alliance, a retired member of the National Farmers’ Union, a former member of the National Sheep Association and a retired sheep farmer, and I own a working dog. I think that clears that little problem up.
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech, delivered with great authority and knowledge about the subject. He is a former CEO of the Countryside Alliance, and his knowledge about and experience of the countryside—its activities and wider rural issues—is frankly vast. In addition, he brings to your Lordships’ House his considerable political experience, having served as Chief Whip in the House of Commons, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary of State for Wales. I am delighted to say that he is a fellow Staffordian man. I know that the whole House will benefit from listening to his words of wisdom for many years to come. However, with the sword of Damocles hanging over me and my fellow hereditaries, we have sadly been robbed of the ability to share in that experience. That will be our considerable loss. I wish my noble friend well and offer him my congratulations.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on supporting the Bill in this House and my honourable friend Aphra Brandreth, whose Bill it is, on sponsoring it in the other place. From a livestock farmer’s point of view, it is high time that the 1953 Act be brought up to date to suit the much-changed conditions that livestock farmers experience in these modern days. I am elated that this Bill received cross-party support in the other place and has the support of His Majesty’s Government. For that I thank the Minister, who I know is very supportive of all rural issues.
The cost of sheep worrying for farmers is very considerable, but the impact of stress on animals is simply unacceptable, as is the emotional strain placed on farmers and their families and employees from such incidents. The majority of dog owners who exercise their pets in the countryside behave in a very responsible manner, treating livestock and property with due respect. It is so sad that we must legislate to deter and prevent the small minority who do not behave, but it is essential.
This Bill is a golden opportunity to widen the scope of the 1953 Act. I agree especially with the new powers in Clause 4 and the suggestions of the BVA and the RSPCA. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers that the definition of worrying should be
“extended to all farmed livestock and to not just include the actions by dogs but also worrying by humans”.
I say that because I live in the Staffordshire moorlands, close to the Peak District, and have witnessed on numerous occasions at first hand such sheep worrying by humans. I strongly support this Bill and wish it well on its passage through your Lordships’ House.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, on his maiden speech and support a lot of what he said, especially his passion for the countryside. Like other noble Lords, I am a dog owner and have enjoyed the benefit of many years of walking in the countryside across livestock fields. I work in and am a shareholder of a veterinary practice.
I too welcome this Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to get it through Parliament over the last few years. I welcome the updating and extending of the 1953 Bill. It reflects the changes in the number of dogs now kept in the UK and the different types of pet-owning homes, the large increase in pet owners, who may not have a great knowledge of livestock and how it reacts to dogs, and the increase in the number of types of livestock being farmed in the UK.
This Bill covers an area that has become of concern to the veterinary sector in recent years—dog behaviour. This very much reflects our practice’s experience since Covid of the aggression that dogs have due to lack of socialisation. The BVA is taking an interest in this area and we hope to educate and share knowledge with the public. I welcome the update to the types of livestock covered to include camelids, as they are becoming a lot more common and being farmed, as we are very aware in our practice.
I have very few concerns with the Bill and I support it. I welcome the substitution of Section 2 of the 1953 Act on seizure and detention of dogs. I especially support the change to allow police to seize dogs that continue to pose a threat in attacking and worrying livestock. My concern, as with our other debate, is with the enforcement of the Bill and the cost to police and local authorities of holding dogs. I note the change to help address this in the Bill, but my experience of veterinary clients is that, sometimes, the dogs most likely to worry animals come from individuals who find it difficult to pay their bills. Therefore, the ability of local authorities and police to recover debt will be an issue. I know the Minister is fully aware of the pressure on authorities dealing with animal welfare, as the APPG on animal welfare had a discussion on this recently, which she kindly attended.
Hopefully the Bill will help educate the public on livestock worrying and support farmers to reduce the attacks on farms in rural areas. If it passes, it will be a good opportunity to really promote this to all dog owners in this country, to encourage education on how dogs should be on leads when crossing fields when livestock in them, and to clearly define what a pet is when it is under close control. I therefore support the Bill.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure the whole House looks forward to his future meaningful contributions. I declare my interests as both a dog owner and a livestock farmer. I must admit that dogs running through livestock, whether it is cows and calves or sheep, is one of the things that keeps me awake at night.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this Bill to your Lordships’ House. It is a Bill with which I have some particular familiarity, since I was looking forward to supporting it myself here before it fell at Dissolution last year in July. I find myself in support of all of its clauses, in particular Clauses 3 and 4. This is as a result of a harrowing personal experience, the like of which I would not wish on anyone.
I received a call a few years ago from a neighbour, who was reporting that dogs were attacking sheep on a nearby field. When I arrived there, I found two dogs with their muzzles covered in blood, standing some distance from a flock of sheep which were huddled together in terror. In their number were some that had survived an attack, bloodied and in some cases with parts of their faces hanging off, and some with limbs so damaged that they could barely stand. On the grass across the field were the corpses of those that had not survived.
The two dogs which had perpetrated this attack had exhausted themselves and were standing stationary, hanging their heads. One policeman had arrived and was in the process of gathering up one of the dogs and putting it in his van. Meanwhile, the owner of the dogs, who lived close by, caught the second dog and took it home, where it was presumably washed off and made to look innocent. Although there was no doubt as to the guilt of both that specific second dog and its owner, the single policeman present did not have the authority to enter the house and take away the second offending dog. This has resulted in the very real fear that such an incident may reoccur since, sadly, history shows this to be a very real probability once a dog has acted in this way.
Clause 4 would address such an injustice, by creating new powers of entry and search. Clause 3 would also have enabled further action to take place after the event. It provides the opportunity to take samples from a dog or an impression from livestock, which might provide conclusive evidence to identify and thus detain a dog where there is suspicion of its culpability, as opposed to the certainty that was the case in my personal example. This is a positive improvement in the terms of the Bill, which means I have no hesitation at all in supporting these two clauses in particular and the Bill in its entirety, and I am delighted it has cross-party support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Coffey and others who have participated in the proceedings. I give a very warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Hart and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I declare briefly my interest as associate of the British Veterinary Association.
We have heard why this Bill is needed and about the gap in the current legislation. The changes we have seen since 1953, when the original Act was passed, are dramatic: the number of livestock has doubled, dog ownership now stands at 12 million and one in three households owns a dog. There have been 34,000 incidents a year of dogs worrying sheep, with 15,000 sheep being killed by dogs annually. This causes great concern and distress to the farming community. The Countryside Code has a role to play here but this demonstrates its weakness, as does the number and nature of wildfires we have seen, not least the one that is still burning on Langdale Moor, causing great concern in North Yorkshire.
Farming is not a charitable undertaking. Farmers care greatly for their livestock; they cherish and nourish them. It is a huge personal loss, not just an economic loss, and causes extreme grief when a sheep dies as a result of sheep worrying or a dog attack. It shows a gross lack of respect for the countryside and the farming community, as well as for sheep and other livestock. We should take note of the contribution that the farming community and livestock industry make to the food and drink sector; at the moment, this stands at £153 billion, and farming is a great part of that.
I have two small questions to put to the Minister. The first concerns the description of the animals that are covered. I welcome the introduction of camelids in the Bill, which will cover alpacas, llamas and others. In my former constituency in North Yorkshire, there are petting farms, and other areas have petting zoos. Will these be covered if a dog attack or worrying incident takes place? Secondly, is my understanding correct that the provisions of the Bill will lapse in 2034? If that is the case, for what reason? The problem will not just disappear at that time.
I give a warm welcome to the Bill. My noble friend Lady Coffey outlined each and every one of the provisions, which I support, including giving the police the authority in the circumstances described by my noble friend Lord Colgrain, in which many of the perpetrators—the dogs—may go free. I wish the Bill a smooth passage, but would like answers to those two brief questions.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, offers us an excellent opportunity to modernise legislation which has been left standing for far too long, namely the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. This Act belongs to a bygone age of farming and dog ownership. Similar laws have already been updated in Scotland, where penalties are now significantly higher and more species are protected.
Dog ownership has surged, and with it has come an increase in preventable tragedies. Farmers have spoken of sheep mauled, cattle panicked and livelihoods threatened. Beyond the immense emotional toll, the financial impact is substantial. A 2025 survey by the National Sheep Association found that a very high proportion of farmers—more than four in five—had experienced a dog attack on their flock in the past year.
Balance is crucial. We want the countryside to feel welcoming and safe for everyone, but it cannot be safe if laws from 70 years ago are expected to cope with life as it is today. The current 1953 Act, for example, defines livestock narrowly and limits the offence to agricultural land. This new Bill, sponsored in the Commons by Aphra Brandreth MP, modernises the law by extending the offence to include roads and paths, and expanding the definition of livestock to include animals such as llamas and alpacas.
What I particularly welcome in this legislation is its measured approach. It strengthens police powers for evidence gathering, which is critical, as a lack of evidence is often why prosecutions fail. These new powers will be supported by advances such as the canine DNA recovery project, which is developing best practices for collecting DNA from attack scenes to identify the dogs responsible, as was ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Bill increases the maximum penalty for an offence, which is extremely welcome, thus creating a stronger deterrent. As other noble Peers have mentioned, the devil, as ever, will be in the detail of enforcement, and I look forward to hearing more on that from the Minister.
Many people simply do not understand just how quickly their loveable dog, while gentle at home, can cause panic and injury. Research suggests that most incidents arise when dogs are simply not kept on a lead. As others have mentioned, education remains as important as enforcement. Stakeholders agree that, while legal reforms are essential, education and responsible ownership are key to reducing these kinds of incidents.
For our part, the Liberal Democrats see this as more than a narrow rural crime Bill. This effort has widespread cross-party support, and is welcomed by the NFU, the RSPCA and others. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her determination in bringing this forward—again. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, on his excellent maiden speech and expert insight on the subject of today’s debate; I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.
This Bill has all-party support and is, in effect, the same as the one that the noble Baroness introduced in 2023, which fell when the general election was called. This Bill is long overdue but carefully crafted, and it deserves an easy passage. From these Benches, we will support it wholeheartedly.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as a former Chief Whip, I am pleased to follow the convention of congratulating my noble friend Lord Hart on his maiden speech. He has demonstrated his long experience of the countryside and rural affairs, and the House will look forward to his future contributions.
The House may be relieved to know that I do not have an old MAFF t-shirt on dogs worrying sheep. However, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on her persistence as a leading advocate of this Bill in the Commons and on now piloting it through this House. There is not much I need to say, since she has clearly set out its excellent provisions, and the Official Opposition are pleased to support it. I hope that we can get it on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I looked at the National Sheep Association’s 2023 survey, the eighth that it has conducted since 2013. There were 305 respondents, or 79% of NSA members. Some 70% of respondents had a sheep worrying incident, with 95% of them involving between one and 10 sheep. In almost 70% of cases, a single dog has injured or killed multiple sheep. Respondents still have severe concerns around education and irresponsible dog ownership, and only 14% were alerted by the offending dog owner, with the majority left to discover the evidence later.
It is right to make a separate offence of attacking animals, as opposed to worrying animals. I often think that the term “worrying” plays down the terrible damage that dogs can do to sheep, especially pregnant ewes, by chasing them round a field and causing their lambs, as well as the ewe herself, to die. A dog does not have to land a bite or make a physical attack on a sheep to kill it. There will be those letting their dogs run wild in a field who do not care what damage they do, but I suspect that many simply do not realise that their dog or dogs chasing sheep can result in the sheep’s deaths.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I will mention “One Man and his Dog”. I wonder sometimes whether ignorant townies have seen the sheepdogs herding sheep and thought that it was okay for their dogs to chase sheep around too. I say “ignorant townies” because of an occasion many years ago when I attended a young farmers’ open day held in the city of Carlisle, which my rural constituency surrounded. The idea was that the young farmers would take a bit of the countryside into the city and let townies see what they did. One demonstration was sheep shearing. I was standing beside a couple, when a child, aged about 12 or 13, said, “Mummy, mummy, look at that awful man cutting all the hair of that poor beast”. “Yes,” she replied, “It’s disgusting. Don’t look. Let’s go”. For a garrulous politician, I was absolutely speechless; I could not believe the complete disconnect between town and country and that level of ignorance. It may be similar ignorance among non-country people that means they do not see the dangers of letting their dogs run wild in a field of animals—or of lighting disgusting disposable BBQs that they then leave behind, if they have not already set the place on fire.
I note that the Bill now includes all camelids. I have seen herds of llamas and alpacas in east Cumbria and around Penrith, but perhaps over in west Cumbria the Minister has dromedary and Bactrian camels too. I think they would make short shrift of any dogs trying to attack them.
Although the Bill is excellent, I worry about enforcement; other noble Lords have commented on this. The police—even rural police forces—may not give it the effort it deserves, then the CPS may not bother prosecuting and the fines may end up being derisory.
Taking the police first, I worry that the culprits will be long gone before a constable turns up to seize the dog. The National Sheep Association survey showed that 84% of farmers found out about an attack and a dead sheep much later. Even if the police turn up when the attack or worrying is in progress, the decision may be that, without a full risk assessment and protective clothing, as well as other health and safety concerns, they cannot intervene. If there are recorded cases of the police not jumping into a pond to save a drowning child, they might never intervene to seize an attacking dog.
There are countless cases of the police failing to attend a burglary. In 2022-23, the average police response time for a burglary in England and Wales was nine hours and eight minutes. Some rural forces had some of the worst times: in Northamptonshire, it was 28 hours and two minutes; in Durham, it was 26 hours; in South Yorkshire, which is big sheep country, it was 12 hours and 47 minutes; while Cumbria was one of the fastest, at a little over an hour. Without labouring it further, my point is that if the police fail to turn up expeditiously for burglaries, there is little hope of them rushing out to sheep worrying attacks.
Yes, taking samples is an excellent innovation, but I did a Google search this week and found that the cost of a court-admissible DNA test is between £300 and £400. Let me be clear: I am not criticising the Bill—it is an excellent Bill—but I urge the Minister to write to all rural forces after the Bill becomes law to stress to them that they must enforce the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 on investigating, taking samples, seizing dogs and making the owners pay. I want her to stress that the police must take this seriously; possibly of even more importance, so must the courts.
The current law is a level 3 fine, which goes up to £1,000, which may be a fraction of the cost of the killed sheep. The Bill states simply that it shall be a fine, with no level attached. In theory, that could be an unlimited fine, with which most of us here—everyone in this House, I think—would agree, but who will determine the level? I am afraid that it may be the discredited Sentencing Council. Parliament has already had to intervene in the past few months to pass a law to stop the council undermining the laws we have passed with some of its laughable sentencing guidelines. The Justice Secretary announced this week that the Government will take a power to overrule its sentencing guidelines. Why stop there? Tony Blair created this anti-democratic organisation, so it should be abolished—but that is a separate debate.
I have been in Parliament for 42 years. Almost every single year, under every Government, we have voted through tougher sentences for a whole range of crimes but then, behind our backs, the Sentencing Council has made sentencing recommendations that give the maximum sentence only in very rare cases. So I welcome the fact that, in this Bill, we have the possibility of large fines. However, I am afraid that the courts may be advised to make derisory penalties, as urban-based judges and council members may have no real appreciation of the damage caused in the countryside. Again, I urge the Minister to get her officials to look at any guidance produced in future by the Sentencing Council and, if it seems to undermine what we in this Chamber today are expecting from this Bill, to notify the Justice Secretary and get it overruled.
I repeat: this is an excellent Bill. The contents are right, and I hope that it becomes law as soon as possible. As the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—said in her winding-up speech in our debate on the previous Bill, any new legislation is only as good as the enforcement of it. This Bill must be enforced by the police, the CPS and the courts. I want assurances from the Minister that she will—pardon the pun—doggedly hound those bodies to ensure that they do what we in Parliament have mandated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important Bill in the other place and for taking it through so eloquently. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for assuming responsibility for the Bill in this House, and I recognise her long commitment on this issue. I am delighted to speak and to confirm government support for the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, for his eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to his further contributions and welcome him warmly to our House.
As we have heard, dog ownership and the number of livestock kept in the UK have drastically increased since the passing of the 1953 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the survey that had been carried out by the National Sheep Association on the number of dog attacks now experienced by farmers—with 87% of them having experienced attacks in the last 12 months and 96% saying they experience between one and 10 cases of sheep worrying every year. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, spoke about a particularly harrowing attack, which demonstrates why the Bill is so needed.
To speak personally, a few years ago, our neighbour had some sheep on our top field. Unfortunately, there was a dog attack there. Luckily, no sheep died, but it is still horrendous when it happens. Unless you have seen it, it is difficult to truly imagine the damage and stress. The scale of these attacks is really concerning now, which is why the Government are so strongly supporting the Bill. We need urgent measures to protect our farmers and their animals.
We have heard about the devastating consequences—injury or death of animals, aborted lambs and flocks of birds being smothered—all of which are appalling to the farmers who own the livestock. The National Sheep Association’s survey showed clearly the concerns that farmers have raised. It also agreed that there is a need for additional police powers. We must go further to protect our agricultural sector from this, which is why we so strongly support the Bill.
Livestock worrying does not have just an emotional impact; it also places a large financial strain on farmers. A 2025 survey carried out by the National Farmers’ Union found that the total cost of livestock worrying across the UK reached £1.8 million. In England, the Midlands was the worst hit region in terms of cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £452,000. This clearly shows how detrimental it can be for farmers’ livelihoods.
The Bill will address farmers’ concerns by strengthening police powers. These include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Under current legislation, the police can seize a dog found and suspected to have attacked or worried livestock only for the purposes of identifying the owner. Under the Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that a dog could attack or worry livestock again, they will have the power to seize and detain it. The dog can then be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought forward for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. Additionally, the police can currently enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog. The police powers will be extended to allow the police to enter and search premises with a warrant to seize a dog and take samples if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.
The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and dental impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that the sample or impression might provide evidence of the offence. These powers give the police the tools they need to bring offenders to justice and will help ease the worry that many farmers feel when it comes to dog attacks on their livestock.
To better deter livestock worrying offences, the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. This measure reflects the severe consequences that these incidents have for livestock and their keepers and the significant resources required by the police to investigate.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about guidance on these penalties. The courts will determine the appropriate fine amount, and that will take account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The level of the fine will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive. There were further questions around enforcement that I will come to in a moment.
Furthermore, the Bill 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 farmed. The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Reframing the legislation so that the term “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.
I come to the questions around enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about that, and I absolutely understand concerns around enforcement. As I said, there is no point in legislation if you do not enforce it. As the noble Lord so clearly demonstrated, it has not been working effectively enough—another reason for bringing in the Bill. It improves enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying and attacks much more effectively. It should help the police take each report more seriously. We have engaged with the police on the measures in the Bill, and we know that the police are very keen for it to go through and get on to the statute.
Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved out of court through the community resolution process, and this usually includes compensation paid by the offender to the livestock owner. There is also a separate regime for farmers to obtain compensation. Section 3 of the Animals Act 1971 provides that anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by killing or injuring livestock may be liable for that damage. Farmers can also obtain and claim on their insurance in relation to losses incurred because of livestock worrying incidents. When cases are taken through the courts, as I said, the courts will determine the appropriate fine, taking into account the seriousness of the offence.
On the number of people prosecuted, the average number of livestock worrying prosecutions every year is 23. This is based on figures provided by the Ministry of Justice on the number of prosecutions from 2022 to 2024. The average number of people convicted and subsequently sentenced per annum is 20. That is based on the same figures from the MoJ. Because of the measures in the Bill, we would expect the number of prosecutions each year to increase.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also asked about enforcement. Just looking at the police recovering costs from seizing and detaining dogs, one issue is whether it will be expensive to enforce, and how that will affect the ability of the police. The Bill will make it easier for the police to reclaim any costs. Any dogs found without an owner or person in charge can be seized by the police and can be detained until the owner has claimed it back and paid all expenses incurred as a result of the seizure and detention. The police also have the power to dispose of or destroy a dog where the owner fails to pay these expenses within seven days of seizure. If the dog is seized and detained due to posing a continuing threat to livestock, the costs incurred can be recoverable if the owner is subsequently convicted. The Bill will enable the courts to make an order requiring the owner to pay whatever sum the court determines reasonable for the costs associated with the seizure and detention of the dog. The magistrates’ courts will also have powers to enforce these orders. The Government take this very seriously; we do not want extra costs on the police.
There was also a question about microchipping—it might have been from the noble Lord, Lord Trees. At the moment, 23 databases, operating independently of Defra, provide microchip data. If you include the dog’s microchip number in any evidence, that constitutes the processing of personal data and would give rise to a number of data protection issues, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions require the register to be made publicly available.
The Bill requires the police to keep a register of all dogs seized in the area, which must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and whether the dog was disposed of and how. That register must be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public, free of charge.
It has also been mentioned that this is an issue of responsible dog ownership, and I confirm to noble Lords that we have brought back the responsible dog ownership task force. We have asked it to do work in a number of areas, because it is important that people understand their responsibilities when they are owners of pets. For example, it is very frustrating when people say, “Look, Fido only wants to play”. There is a complete misunderstanding of the importance of keeping your dog under control in areas where there are livestock. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned the importance of socialisation, which, again, is incredibly important. Many dogs were left without this following Covid, so, again, it is an important part of educating owners on how best to look after their dogs.
Just to finish, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked a couple of questions. On petting zoos, it will be for the courts to decide whether a petting farm is agricultural land, based on the facts of each case as it goes to them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Would it make sense, when the regulations come forward, to embrace all commercially produced animals in the definition, for the avoidance of doubt?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am happy to take these issues away. At the moment, it covers grazing land. The definition of grazing land is something, again, that the courts can look at. Perhaps we can consider those definitions further. On the noble Baroness’s final point, that the legislation will lapse in 2034, I would just like to confirm that it is not going to lapse in 2034.
I am confident that it has been recognised here today that the Bill is really necessary to protect our farmers and our livestock. I thank all noble Lords for their time and valuable contributions. The robust measures that this introduces are long overdue. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to pursue this issue. We must pass the Bill without delay to support our dedicated farmers who have long been calling for these measures.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed today. It is good to have yet another Bill that has strong support from all parties, and those of no party, for this legislation to get through. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned “One Man and His Dog”. I did watch that, even though I grew up in Liverpool—perhaps it was a substitute for not having a pet animal at the time. Nowadays, I prefer the TikTok of Sean the Sheepman, with the endeavours of Kate, Storm and Echo.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, asked about worrying by humans. This legislation does not apply to that; however, the under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, humans can certainly be prosecuted for any such concerns that he has.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked—I cannot quite recall whether in the debate, but certainly outside—whether this applied to donkeys. I am now delighted to tell him it does. The definition of horses includes asses and mules. Apparently, ass is the correct technical name for a donkey, which is a bit more informal. That, I hope, is there.
On the points raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the original 1953 Act mentions
“arable, meadow or grazing land”.
I say to her that this is really designed to be about farmers and farmed livestock, rather than perhaps a petting zoo. As the Minister outlined, some of this will depend on exactly where the particular facility is.
I note that the reason we are here is really that put forward by my noble friend Lord Colgrain in his striking speech and the very distressing, although measured, way he explained why this is so needed, from his own personal experience.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby. Perhaps this is a bit risqué for the Lords but, dare I say it, a Welshman talking about sheep-worrying could have gone down another avenue. Nevertheless, I know that he has a sense of humour, and we will continue to see that in the House.
I have not mentioned everybody who has spoken but I thank all those who have contributed. I look forward to the Bill making good progress, hopefully, through the House. This will automatically commence if this House passes it as it stands today, which would be good. I hope to get it in before the lambing season of 2026.