Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.