Water Safety

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate.

My constituent Chiedza Nyanjowa was only 15 when she went to Formby beach on the bank holiday weekend with her 11-year-old cousin and her auntie—the beginning of this story is such a wholesome day out. Chiedza could not swim, so she and her cousin were playing safely on the sand with a beach volleyball. Unfortunately, the volleyball went into the sea and the girls went into the water to try to retrieve it. I think about how often I have told my own children: “Look after your things!” That was all the girls were trying to do; they were trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, Chiedza did not make it back out of the sea in time.

Chiedza was, by all accounts, an absolutely lovely girl. She really liked helping others and her ambition was to grow up and become a nurse—an ambition that, sadly, will not be realised. That is a great loss to our community, because it sounds like she really was a deeply lovely child and a very loving Christian. She was also, by all accounts, fun; she liked taking selfies and doing all the things that teenage girls do. She liked to get flowers for her friends for their birthdays. She was extremely giving. She had recently won the local Rotary competition for cheffing.

Chiedza’s mother is the most incredible woman; meeting her was such an honour. She spoke to me at length about how grateful she was to both the off-duty doctor who spent a considerable period trying to rescue Chiedza from the water and the two off-duty nurses who spent a really long time doing their absolute best to revive Chiedza. I am sure she would also like me to say thank you to the members of New Life church; she is very grateful for their prayers for Chiedza.

Chiedza’s mother is just a great inspiration, and I feel very strongly that we must do everything we possibly can to prevent further such tragedies in our community. You cannot participate in the debate, Ms McVey, but I know that you have a lake in your constituency at which there are regularly tragedies of this kind, and I am sure that you would want us to assure everybody that we will work on a cross-party basis in Cheshire to look at this issue on a local level.

When we look at the statistics for child safety in water, we see that boys tend to die at twice the rate of girls, children in the most deprived communities die at twice the rate of more affluent children, and black children are three times more likely to die than white children. Luck should not determine whether children make it to adulthood; there are systemic problems here that we are failing to address. In my community, 39% of children with low family affluence can swim 25 metres, compared with 82% of children with high family affluence, so there is a systemic problem. Whether someone makes it to adulthood should not be an accident of birth, but at the moment it is.

We need to strengthen the school curriculum. The aim is that children should leave primary school able to swim, but a third of children cannot. It seems to me that even if a child can swim at the end of year 4, if they do not have the opportunity to practise that skill in the years that follow, the chances that they will still be able to swim 25 metres when they are 16 are negligible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen read out the terrible list of names of the many young people who died over the bank holiday weekend. Rather than regarding those as individual unfortunate accidents, we must look at what we need to change systemically when it comes to improving access to swimming for the wider community—including the availability and affordability of leisure centres and swimming lessons—and introducing greater consistency through the national curriculum so that children do not leave primary school unable to swim, and can still swim when they leave secondary school.

There are a lot of steps that we could take; I was interested to hear the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) to Sam’s law. We should absolutely look at opportunities in the clean water Bill. I know that Education Ministers have agreed to look at that, and I agree that we should be working cross-party and across Departments to ensure that we consistently prioritise our young people’s making it to adulthood.

Since I became an MP, it has shocked me to learn how many young people die by some sort of misadventure in my community. It is not only drownings, but road accidents and issues associated with mental health problems. We need a consistent approach across the country to ensuring that our young people make it to adulthood, because they are not doing so at the rate that they should be. Too many young people are dying in my community. I go to too many schools where I see whole cohorts of bereaved children. It is not just about the families of the children who have died, although it is horrific for them; it is also about the impact on all their peers.

My heart goes out so much to Chiedza’s cousin and the rest of her family. I really would like to impress upon the Minister that we must do something, systematically and urgently, about water safety. I know that she takes these issues very seriously. Given that we have so many avoidable deaths of young people, we must also look at ourselves as a society and consider whether we are committing our resources in the right places.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank everybody for what has been a really good debate. It shows Parliament at its best when we all try to work together for the same aim, and that is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate and for his powerful and moving words. I know him to be an incredibly decent and passionate man who is trying to do his best for his constituents.

With Drowning Prevention Week beginning this Saturday, there is no better moment for this House to turn its attention to keeping people safe in our waters. Next week will also be the launch of the water safety framework, which has been led by the Department for Education.

Before I respond to hon. Members on the policy substance, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives in water. I pay tribute to Sam’s family and the Mirror, who have been leading on this campaign. The fatalities we have seen during recent periods of warm weather, and the tragic deaths raised movingly in this room, underline the urgency of the issue. I pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and members of the public whose courage saves lives every day. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England and the National Water Safety Forum: their tireless work in prevention, education and rescue deserves the recognition of the House.

I will respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in paying tribute to Luke for his courage. I agree that learning to swim is crucial and so is learning to survive; I will ensure that the points she made on this issue are communicated to the Department for Education.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) in thanking the RNLI for its work. I am of course happy to pass on her thoughts on the education programme to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and to DFE. I share her concerns about restricting training for kayak rolling. That does not feel particularly sensible to me. We must not let concerns about minor damage get in the way of lifesaving training—I am happy to support there.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) always speaks with such authority and compassion. I join her in paying tribute to York Rescue Boat for its work, and also thank Humber Rescue for its work in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to raise water quality as a hugely important issue. It is not just about water shock and drowning: the quality of the water can have such a detrimental impact on people’s health. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) spoke movingly about the tragic loss faced by her constituent and the importance of us all working together, and I thank her for her speech.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has campaigned on water safety for a long time. His ten-minute rule Bill brought this matter to my attention. He has met with me before about the issue and has been completely committed to it. I will take up his points about water company safety equipment personally with water companies. We are doing some work on how to ensure that reservoirs are generally kept safe, so I am happy to take that point away personally.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke caringly about Sam’s law. I am thinking of the best way to achieve that, and whether we need primary legislation or whether we can just do it. Let me take that point away and have a look at it.

In my constituency, Hull city council offers free swimming lessons during the summer for children. I hope that is something that many councils are able to offer. I have a personal frustration that Hull city council has still not opened Pickering Park pool, but I will not bring that into this debate.

[Sarah Russell]

It has been mentioned in this debate that there is great regional inequality, and that children in the most deprived areas are most likely to drown. Interventions solely focused on deprived areas concern me because there are considerable numbers of deprived children in England who do not live in deprived areas. We compound their disadvantage if we focus lifesaving decision making and resources only in those areas. I want to see deprived children across the whole country receive the assistance that they need—they should not be dying.

[Emma Hardy]

Without straying too far from the debate that we are having, the question of inequality is very interesting, especially with the news that the Conservative party wants to get rid of the public sector duty. We are actually looking at whether to expand that duty to include class as an inequality issue. Maybe if class was included in the public sector duty, we could ensure that we prioritise working-class children, who are more likely to drown, to receive the support that they need. However, that may be moving too far away from the topic of the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaks brilliantly in every debate that we are both involved in. I agree that it is important that we all learn to swim. He is right to highlight quarries as extremely dangerous to swim in, and how we need to be aware that, even though the water looks calm on the surface, there are dangers underneath.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) made an important point about national parks, and gave a thoughtful contribution on how they communicate and the role that they play. I am happy to pass that on to the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), to have a look at.

Water safety touches on public safety, education, local delivery, the environment and much more. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said, this issue is held by many different Departments. DEFRA looks at water quality. We look at bathing waters, as has been mentioned. We designate sites and monitor water quality so that people can make decisions about where to swim, but it is right to highlight that, even if somewhere is designated as bathing water, people still need to think about how safe it is to swim there. But our bathing water reforms do, for the first time, require physical safety to be explicitly considered before a site can be designated. That is a meaningful change that we brought in.

We also provide policy oversight and funding to the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency, which manage millions of miles of inland waterways. They look at risk assessments on high-risk locations, install lifesaving equipment where it is needed, run targeted safety campaigns, particularly during hot weather, and deliver education programmes, especially for young people. Both organisations support national campaigns such as the National Water Safety Forum’s “Respect the Water”, as well as partner campaigns such as the RNLI’s “Float to Live”, which provides simple, lifesaving advice on what someone should do if they get into difficulty in the water.

This issue is held across Government. In my time as Minister, I have found that sometimes when things are held across Government, they are owned by everybody and nobody at the same time, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in his call to convene a meeting of all responsible Departments, to sort out which actions need to be taken by which Department to move this issue forward.

The Department of Health has responsibility for public health, and there is also the Health and Safety Executive. The Department for Transport, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supports search and rescue, and contributes vital incident data to the national evidence base. Local authorities lead on frontline response and community safety. As many hon. Members mentioned, in education the national curriculum requires primary schools to teach children to swim. Then there are the prevention of future deaths reports and the powerful campaigning of families. The Secretary of State for Education has committed to strengthening water safety education.

Many different Departments need to work together, looking at what they are responsible for and making sure that they action things through their Department. I would be happy to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in convening that meeting. It is through all these efforts, working together and backed by Government, that we reduce risk, save lives and ensure that people can continue to enjoy our waters safely.

Water Companies

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated about this issue. Each company will set out through the price review exactly what it will deliver and when, and make priorities. As I have already mentioned in the House, we are prioritising bathing waters, chalk streams and various other areas at the moment, but he is well within his rights as a Member of Parliament to campaign for his area to be moved up and be given greater priority.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Since 2003, my constituent has suffered multiple incidents every year of raw sewage flooding into his garden. United Utilities is disputing with him how the guaranteed standards scheme works, and he is not receiving adequate compensation. His golden wedding anniversary was completely ruined when he had family over and the garden was literally full of excrement. This situation could not be any worse—it is an absolute disgrace. Although we have strengthened the regulations, our current system is not sufficiently economically damaging to UU to force it to take actions that would solve the problem for my constituent. Will the Minister please meet with me and my constituent to talk to him about this issue?

[Emma Hardy]

I would, of course, be happy to meet with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I welcomed the opportunity to meet with the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss these issues in more detail. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tracey Hanson, who has been a tireless campaigner for victims of serious crime, particularly in relation to unduly lenient sentences, following the tragic loss of her son Josh? Organisations such as the Josh Hanson Trust do vital work in this area. As I said in answer to the previous question, I am working with Ministry of Justice colleagues to see if we can find solutions to some of the issues raised today.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases involving violence against women and girls.

[The Solicitor General]

Today, I can announce an additional £5 million of funding for the CPS, which will be invested to benefit victims of domestic abuse. In three pilot areas, victims will be offered meetings with prosecutors ahead of Crown court trials, ensuring that their voices are heard and better supporting them to remain engaged in the criminal justice process. This offer is already available to victims of rape and serious sexual assault across the country. From speaking with prosecutors and victims, I know the difference that those meetings can make, and I am pleased to see them extended to victims of domestic abuse.

[Sarah Russell]

I very much welcome that news. Prosecution rates in cases involving violence against women and girls are shamefully low. I strongly welcome the Government’s ambition to tackle violence against women and girls, including our manifesto commitments to fast-track rape cases and introduce specialist courts. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the Government’s progress on those promises?

[The Solicitor General]

I know that my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for tackling violence against women and girls, and I am proud of our cross-Government strategy to do just that, which we set out in December. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the CPS is working actively alongside the Government to ensure that the criminal convictions for victims of child sexual exploitation, with the offence in that case being prostitution, are being disregarded, which is extremely important.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help improve efficiency in the criminal justice system through the use of technology. [R]

[The Solicitor General]

Better use of technology is key to reforming all our public services, including the criminal justice system, from the police and the CPS to our courts, prisons and probation services. This Government are absolutely determined to harness all the power and potential of new technology to the benefit of the public, those who work in our public services and, of course, the public purse.

[Sarah Russell]

I thank the Solicitor General for that answer. The courts system and all the associated IT have been left in the most catastrophic state by the previous Conservative Government. It is shocking that £2 billion was spent on a civil courts IT system that cannot even handle litigation where there is more than one claimant or defendant, which is basic and normal. The particular issue that worries me today, though, is the Legal Aid Agency and the state of its IT system; as she will know, it was the subject of a cyber-attack in the spring. Could she update us on that situation and on any potential plans to build back better?

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chambers]

That is an insightful intervention from my hon. Friend. Yes, most people are shocked at the sheer scale of puppy smuggling. The Dogs Trust did a study looking at one of the online platforms with puppy adverts, and up to 50% of those adverts turned out to be for puppies that had possibly been smuggled in from abroad. In the last 12 months, one in five vets said they had treated animals that they believed had been smuggled from abroad. This is not a niche issue; it is a systemic issue within the pet trade, and these loopholes need to be closed.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing this fantastic Bill, which does important things for animal welfare. Sadly, my constituency has a problem with dog-on-dog attacks, which are truly distressing to their owners. The overwhelming majority of dog owners in my constituency are incredibly responsible and keep their dogs under control at all times, but a tiny minority are doing a great deal of damage. Does the hon. Member have any thoughts on what we could do about that?

[Dr Chambers]

Dog-on-dog attacks are a huge issue. It largely comes down to socialisation when they are puppies. It was made a lot worse during the covid pandemic when people could not attend normal puppy training classes, and puppies could not walk and meet other dogs or have normal training regimes.

I will also come on to the problem of dogs having illegally cropped ears—when their ears are cut off—because dogs communicate by body language, and part of their body language is ear position. If they cannot move their ears, they cannot communicate in normal ways to other dogs that they are not a threat, and they are more likely to get into fights and difficulties. It is the same if their tails are cut off and they cannot show whether they are happy, sad, angry or confident.

When owners buy a new puppy, often they do not realise that it has been smuggled and taken from its mother far too soon. That can cause a lot of medical issues and other diseases, such as parvo virus. It is not unusual for someone to buy a new puppy and, within the first week or two, have to go to the vet repeatedly with a very sick animal, whose problems are often quite hard to diagnose. Sometimes these diseases are fatal. There are few things more heartbreaking than a family who, within a few days of ownership, not only have an expensive veterinary bill but have lost their new puppy.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

When one thinks of dogs and their close relationship with humans, a good place to start is literature. A great novel about our relationship with dogs is “White Fang” by Jack London, a great American socialist writer. When it comes to cats, I can do no better than Natsume Sōseki, the great Japanese writer who wrote a series of novels about cats observing their human masters with great wit and intelligence.

As a boy, I had three dogs—or rather, my father did. They were Pistol, Poins and Muttley. My dad believed that dogs should be named after Shakespearean characters, hence Pistol and Poins, but the balance of power shifted in the family, and then we had Muttley, the Hanna-Barbera dog—though we drew the line at Huckleberry Hound. Something very important about the dogs is that they were all strays. They had great emotional difficulty in being able to trust humans because they were mistreated when they were younger. That is why the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) was right to emphasise the real damage that cruelty to animals can do. The next-door neighbours have two cats, Butch and Cuddles, and the clue is somewhat in their name; they were stray cats. Butch took a long time to trust the next-door neighbours and my family and I, but he does trust us now. If animals suffer cruelty when they are young, it causes long-term psychological damage.

I am delighted that the Bill extends to Scotland. This House should not be afraid to legislate for the welfare of people or animals in Scotland, so I commend the hon. Member for Winchester for seeking to legislate for Scotland; it is very important to my constituents. We have the Dogs Trust in Broomhouse in my constituency, which my good friend Councillor Lalley took me to visit. The people there do a huge amount of good work with stray dogs.

[Sarah Russell]

May I take a moment to mention Dobermann Rescue, based in my constituency, which also does fantastic work? I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in commending its work.

[John Grady]

I will join my hon. Friend in commending the work of that Dobermann charity. Dogs like Dobermanns and German shepherds have a certain reputation, but they are very kind, loving and loyal, so I commend work that is done to help Dobermanns.

There is a great deal of support in my constituency for the Bill, which has many important elements. Restricting the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets into the UK on the grounds of welfare is an important objective. As the Bill is implemented, which I hope it will be, we must redouble our efforts to bring to people’s attention how wrong the importation of these animals is.

The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned campaigns on social media, and he was entirely correct to do so. The scale of the problem is large. People are importing these animals for commercial gain, and it involves a great deal of cruelty. There has been a rise in the market for pregnant dogs and cats to be brought in. The hon. Member was right to talk about the mutilation of animals. People have known for decades, if not longer, that the mutilation of animals—tail docking and so on—is cruel and wrong and should not be taking place in this day and age. It is utterly barbaric.

The Bill is very important for public health, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said—dogs that have not been tested for diseases will not be able to come here—and it will help to fulfil Labour party manifesto pledges on animal welfare. It will also improve enforcement. I have some experience of that from talking to former colleagues, and the Bill will make it much easier to enforce certain elements of existing animal cruelty laws, for example on the mutilation of dogs. That is very important.

Mention has been made of dogs on Twitter feeds during the general election campaign. I admit that, during the campaign and for many months beforehand, I too had a hobby of taking pictures of dogs and posting them on Twitter. I have got out of the habit, so I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for reminding me that it is quite a pleasant thing to do. It is probably better for my constituents, too; they probably find it much more interesting than my political comments and other interesting observations I may have. They may, in fact, come to the view that I am more perceptive and expert on dogs than on politics, although I hope they will not find that out for another five years or so.

As a vet, the hon. Member for Winchester speaks from a position of real expertise. He outlined why the Bill is important, and he is to be commended for bringing it to the House.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.