Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Lord Colgrain Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the farming community will be delighted that so many Peers are here for the Third Reading of this important Bill. Livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers, and it 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 and starvation. This modest Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. It will strengthen police powers so they can do their job more effectively, giving them powers of entry and allowing them to seize and detain dogs and collect evidence. At the moment, collecting evidence tends to rely on the good will of the owners of the suspected dog.

I was contacted this week by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who I see is in her place, about a concern passed on to her—that the word “paths” in Clause 1(a) might be interpreted as referring only to footpaths, bridleways or similar. It is important to make it clear that “paths” had its ordinary meaning, and I intend to do that. Anyone who has driven on country roads will know that farmers move livestock. The Bill specifically extends the scope of the provisions so that they do not apply only to a field a farmer may own or where livestock are kept; it recognises that agricultural practices often involve animals being transferred from one field to another. The current legislation does not apply where animals are crossing a road and a dog is out of control, or in other sections that are not a specific field. 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. I understand that “paths” will have its ordinary meaning. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that in her response.

This Bill originally started two years ago, in December 2023, when I took it through the Commons as an MP. My noble friend Lord Colgrain stood ready last year to take it through this House, and then the election was called. I want to thank the new Defra Ministers, who recognised the importance of this issue and ensured it became a government hand-out Bill. That has allowed it a good passage. In particular, I thank Aphra Brandreth, who picked up the Bill shortly after becoming a newly elected MP in Cheshire and who navigated it through the Commons. I thank the NFU and all those who made multiple representations from right around the country. I particularly thank the officials from Defra, who have been working on this for a considerable time. This Bill is a straightforward way to make sure we help our farmers, whose primary role is to grow food to put on our plates. They should not be worrying, literally, about other people’s animals worrying their livestock. I beg to move.

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

My Lords, before there are any Front-Bench responses, I would like to add my thanks to your Lordships’ House and the other place for the speed and constructive nature of the passage of this Bill. As I said at Second Reading, I have borne personal witness to horrible dog attacks on sheep, for which this Bill will make dog owners more accountable. The farming community is facing strong headwinds at the moment, and this small and seemingly innocuous Bill will provide, when it receives Royal Assent, the best possible Christmas present to all livestock owners.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

I would like to add my voice to praise the noble Baroness, who has pursued this Bill for some considerable time, and to express gratitude both to her and to the Minister for allowing it to pass. From grateful sheep owners and dog owners everywhere: thank you.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Lord Colgrain Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Farming Families

Lord Colgrain Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for bringing this debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

The Minister will know that there was no consultation about how the Budget would affect farmers. It is said that the Treasury told Defra only the day before about the APR/BPR changes, which partly explains why they cannot agree between themselves on the figures for affected farms. Both their sets of figures differ from those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a more reliable commentator in this instance. In the run-up to the election, the then shadow Minister Steve Reed said consistently that there would be no change to APR. His discomfort was clear when interviewed on television two nights ago after the march, and indeed at the NFU conference this morning.

Those farms that have diversified their holdings, to endeavour to create new income streams away from traditional sources of farming, now find they will be liable for BPR as well as APR reductions. This will be found all the way down the feed chain, from seed and fertiliser suppliers to hauliers and abattoirs—a significant additional burden on an already beleaguered section of the agricultural economy. The capping of BPS for the next year at £7,200 has thrown the cash flows of many farms into disarray. With no indication of how future payments will be calculated for the next two years, it is now impossible for them to realistically forward plan. Self-evidently, both these measures will discourage investment.

Most importantly of all, with reduced investment will come reduced food production. We produce only 60% of foodstuffs in this country as it is, and this will reduce further. With an inflationary budget, interest rates that will stay higher for longer—so the gilt market is telling us—and additional NI and minimum wage costs further curtailing investment, it is difficult to see how this will reflect the Government’s desire to see increased productivity. It will do precisely the opposite.

Mitigations are said to be that the price of land will fall, thus making it easier for new entrants. But what will this do for farmers whose land is collateral for mortgages or bank loans? If land is sold off in small parcels to pay IHT, with the current environmental and woodland schemes in place, it will be bought at enhanced values and taken out of food production. We must ensure that we have a productive, secure and profitable agricultural economy, and this Budget looks designed to undermine all three of these objectives.

Lastly, there has been little mention of the state of our woodlands and how the Budget will bear down on an asset class which, by its very nature, can mean that, for decades, no income will derive from it. Can the Minister please confirm today that the Government will be providing the Forestry Commission with the budgetary resources it needs to meet the targets that it has been set for tree planting by 2025?

I also ask the Minister to take back to the Treasury some suggestions: to apply 100% capital allowances and partnerships to farm buildings, extend the £1 million limit to £3 million, and exempt those farmers who are over 80 on the day of the Budget from the BPR and APR taxes.