Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Peter Lamb and John Grady

Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Debate between Peter Lamb and John Grady

Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing this important piece of legislation. For hon. Members who do not know Edinburgh North and Leith, the word “and” is very important in the name of that constituency: Leith is quite separate from Edinburgh—it is a separate city and a wonderful city too. I have many fond memories of being in my hon. Friend’s constituency, because I studied in Edinburgh and I was involved in the Children’s Holiday Venture charity, which is still going strong. Students would take children who had been referred by social workers out swimming, ice skating or away to the countryside for the weekend. I loved my time with that charity, known as “The Students” in Pilton, in my hon. Friend’s seat.

The Bill tackles the important issue of trust in politics. In a way, it is mechanistic, in that it looks at mechanisms for voting, but trust in politics is damaged if people feel that they cannot exercise their right to vote because they have been excluded by being disabled, on holiday or for other reasons. People’s trust in politics is damaged if they feel that they are prevented from voting for reasons that they, quite properly, view as being archaic and anachronistic.

These issues were raised with me during the last general election campaign, as it took place during the Scottish school holidays. We have different school holiday dates in Scotland. They start earlier because our harvests are earlier—not very important in Glasgow East, where there are no farms whatsoever. People felt excluded from voting because they had gone on holiday, and the arrangements did not run as well as they ought to have done.

The Bill gives the Scottish and Welsh Governments concurrent powers to introduce regulations to enable applications for postal and proxy votes for the devolved Administrations to be made online using the Government Digital Service. That will make it easier for my constituents in Carmyle, a wonderful mining village, to vote. The Bill also aligns postal voting renewal cycles. This is confusing for me, but postal voting cycles in Scotland are not aligned, and postal votes are very important for many people. That will help, for example, a postal voter in Mount Vernon who cannot get to Mount Vernon primary school to exercise their right to vote. That is important for confidence in democracy.

Other examples of divergence are set out well in the explanatory notes, which were pulled together by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the relevant Department. It is important to minimise divergence in this area and harmonise the rules, because people will question our democracy if those in, for example, Wishaw and Tollcross—I spoke about it earlier, with its wonderful park—are subject to different rules from, say, relatives in Northumberland, Newcastle, Corby or London.

That has been the subject of comment in reports by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which does much important work in scrutinising election rules. I understand that PACAC also took an interest in it. It is important that these rules operate effectively so that, for example, constituents of mine in Calton and Bridgeton—voting, perhaps, at Bridgeton library, Sacred Heart primary school or Dalmarnock primary school—can cast their votes. It is important that those bodies keep this under control.

The Bill results from close working with the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has put a lot of work into ensuring that the Governments work together where possible for the good of people in Scotland.

[Peter Lamb]

My hon. Friend has highlighted PACAC’s work scrutinising elections. As Parliament’s Select Committee that is overseeing this part of the process, we produced recommendations on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. Given that the Bill will devolve to Scottish Government representatives more delegated legislation powers around implementation, does he think it is important that we have a close link between our own Select Committees and those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure that the right lessons are learned and implemented across the whole United Kingdom, rather than just in any one of its constituent parts?

[John Grady]

That is a very good point, and I suggest that the Chair of PACAC picks it up with the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. There are learnings from what happens in Scotland that we can apply in the rest of our family of nations, and vice versa—although I would say that there are no learnings that we can draw from the SNP Government on running a health service, which is in a catastrophic state in Scotland. Speaking of the health service, which is suffering in Scotland, it is important—

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Debate between Peter Lamb and John Grady

Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady]

Yes. The UK Government have invested in Orbex, in Forres in the north of Scotland. It remains important to give grants to earlier-stage companies because they cannot get the equity and debt funding that more advanced companies can, so I welcome that important investment.

The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day lives. When we tap in and out of the underground on the way home or when we purchase things, that relies on satellite technology. Space is also a key focus for the national wealth fund, as confirmed by Lord Livermore, who is Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and John Flint, the chief executive of the national wealth fund, when we discussed the fund at the Treasury Committee this week. Space is an important future business for Britain, and an important economic opportunity.

Another reason why it is important to invest in space is for defence—it is critical to the defence of the United Kingdom. If we have a vibrant space industry in the United Kingdom, that will support the technological innovation we need to defend our country and our allies as we move into a much more difficult foreign policy context.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware of the role that the Starlink system has played in Ukraine in enabling the frontline operations of the Ukrainian army. For a very long time, GPS was the main determinator of whether Trident could arrive at its destination. It strikes me that in some ways the technology, our ability to put things into space and what we are putting up there will be what absolutely determines the nature of warfare in the 21st century; does my hon. Friend agree?

[John Grady]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UK Government have committed to investing in defence and in advances in tech defence. As we develop defence, investing in space is utterly critical and central to that. It is a matter of some regret that Scottish companies that invest in military matters are not funded by the Scottish National Investment Bank or Scottish Enterprise, because they have the view that we should not invest in defence, even though it will create jobs and is important for defending the north of Scotland, which is where my mother came from and which is now very important for defence.

I am an MP for Glasgow, which has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. My seat has the fantastic University of Strathclyde. I recently met Professor Malcolm Macdonald from the university, who is the director of the centre for signal and image processing and the applied space technology laboratory. He outlined to me with great enthusiasm and knowledge the amount of innovation in the space sector in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. This is a critical industry that we must invest in and for which we must create the conditions of investment. Around 52,000 people work in the space sector across the UK, so this is a big opportunity.

Let me turn to talk about precisely what the Bill does, albeit with four words: it seeks to limit space operators’ liability. I emphasise that spaceflight activities are heavily regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for safety. There is day-to-day scrutiny of their safety from an expert safety regulator—the CAA is one of the best regulators in the world—so we are concerned with small risks that are reduced to the very minimum extent possible by a very strong regulatory regime. One of the reasons why our family of nations has a great advantage in space is that because we are right at the end of Europe, we have a great place to launch, because we do not launch over big urban areas. If we go right up to Shetland, there is nothing for hundreds of miles.

There are treaties under international space law, and the UK Government have a long-standing legal liability for damage caused by UK spaceflight-related operations. Despite the space safety regime, there is a residual risk that things go wrong and the UK Government face claims. The UK Government can make claims against operators, which take place under section 36 of the 2018 Act. That is quite proper. Operators have to assume and bear risk, and the Government need to ensure that operators can pay out on claims made against them—as we are quite rightly adopting a cross-party spirit today, I commend the previous Government on their work on space law—which is why the regime under the 2018 Act makes provisions for space operators to put in place compulsory insurance.

The businesses have to insure themselves and are regulated by a very competent regulator. The question is: what happens if a claim exceeds the amount of insurance that can be put in place on a sensible basis? That is really what we are addressing here. The current legislation does not require the Civil Aviation Authority or the Government to include a cap in the licence; it makes it optional. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act provides:

“An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee's liability under section 36 in respect of the activities authorised by the licence.”

The critical thing that my Bill will do is quite simply to swap “may” for “must”, and as a consequence the word “any” in section 36 is changed to “the”. That is consistent with long-standing Government policy that the liability should be limited—there is a clear, documented policy that it is limited.

However, the problem with documented policies as opposed to statute—as a recovering lawyer, I go back to my legal career here—is that Government policies are ultimately much easier to change than statutes. We can have a claim for legitimate expectations and a breach of those, but that is a very difficult class of claim to run, and there has not been a huge number of successful cases of that sort in the courts. It is a difficult area of public law.

Business quite properly says, “You could change this policy and expose our existing investments to additional risk.” Business could also fairly go and look elsewhere for investment. Investors will not invest in the same way in the face of a lack of statutory protection, so the critical thing the Bill does is to include a statutory protection. It requires the Government to cap the liability and encourages people to invest, and that puts us on a par with our principal competitor nations for space investment. So, four words to the Bill, with two swapped, but it is absolutely critical for the future of an industry that could be brilliant for the United Kingdom and all our constituents for years to come.