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