Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business.

I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation.

I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time.

The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying.

I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation.

Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary.

Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks.

In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent.

Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses.

The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending.

Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have

“attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.”

Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely

“until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.”

To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner.

Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge.

Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes:

“causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”

Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again.

Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2.

Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited.

Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains:

“If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.”

Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained:

“A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”

Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development.

Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack.

Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence.

Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary.

These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome.

Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill.

The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.

The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example.

For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout.

Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen.

Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed.

I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome.

The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is

“not on a lead or otherwise under close control”.

That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements.

Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice

“to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”,

including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment.

I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. It is a Wednesday, so this must be another private Member’s Bill on animal welfare; I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing us this important Bill. It is not often that we get such clear and wholehearted support from farmers and animal welfare groups, so I congratulate her. It is good to see animals such as alpacas and llamas mentioned specifically. It gives me flashbacks to meetings of the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, at which we discussed at great length how llamas and alpacas are an increasing part of farm life in the UK these days. I am pleased to see that they are included.

We know that the law around livestock worrying is outdate, and needs updating to reflect current challenges. As the hon. Member outlined, the animal welfare impacts of livestock worrying can be devastating for the animals concerned; those that are not killed are left in agony, with serious injuries, and often have to be euthanised. I am pleased to support the clarification provided by the Bill she has introduced.