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

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chambers]

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

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

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

[Dr Chambers]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Sarah Russell]

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

[John Grady]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for bringing forward this Bill, which is immensely popular with local farmers. I have met with the NFU and its membership repeatedly over months, if not most of the last year, and it is always one of the first things they mention to me. I commend her for her sterling work and for the collegiate way in which she always conducts herself, including in this matter.

It is fantastic that we are extending protection to alpacas and llamas. No one wants to see attacks or worrying, and including both those definitions is really important and strengthens the law appropriately. I am incredibly impressed that the Bill covers paths and roads. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury thinks her constituency is the most beautiful in the country but, of course, it is not even the most beautiful in Cheshire, because mine is better. One of the really beautiful things I did recently was go to Goostrey Rose Festival last weekend. We have new paths in Goostrey and they are used incredibly regularly by dog walkers, but they are on farm boundaries. This legislation is so important for covering paths like those.

I have been on a farm with a family in the aftermath of a dog attack, and it is terrible. I am not here to demonise dog owners—we have so many considerate, sensible, countryside-loving dog owners in my constituency—and I know the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is not either. We are here to make sure that the overwhelming majority of people are left in peace to go about their everyday lives, in both the farming community and the dog-owning community—they are often one and the same—and to make sure that rural crime is properly prosecuted.

GPS theft is another major component of rural crime in my area. Our local police and crime commissioner, Dan Price, has been doing work on this, and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury has been involved in it. It would be great to get an update from the Minister on that.

I want to take a moment to thank the NFU, which has lobbied me extensively on this issue. I am on its food and farming fellowship and have learned a great deal from it. I also thank the farmers in my constituency for continuing to feed us and for looking after the countryside so well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I completely agree that it is incredibly unpleasant. As always, it is only a minority of people who fail to take away their dog’s poo.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for the tip on visiting the beautiful print art in Glasgow. I hope that his father-in-law is impressed by his support for this Bill, if not by his ability as a farmer. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his 23rd wedding anniversary on 12 July.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) talked about the psychological boost that we get when we are near nature. He is completely right. It is such a positive feeling to be out in the wild. I always talk to my local Yorkshire wildlife group about the importance of “tangle”; where some people see mess, others see biodiversity and nature. We get the most nature where there is a tangle of different plants growing; we get very little on a mowed lawn. We get nature where we see weeds, different habitats, and different areas for species to grow and develop. I am convinced that this is a reason not to do as much gardening; we are then supporting biodiversity and the need for tangle. Members have also mentioned the importance of planting more forest and talked about how we can raise the amount of biodiversity on our new estates, all of which I completely agree with.

[Sarah Russell]

The Minister mentions forests. I want to congratulate Trees for Congleton, which has just planted its 30,000th tree in Congleton. It set out a few years ago to plant one tree for every citizen in the town, and it has achieved that. I think that is quite remarkable.

[Emma Hardy]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Trees for Congleton. Thirty thousand trees is an incredible achievement, and let us hope it keeps going.

The number of livestock kept in the UK has nearly doubled since the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 was passed, and there has been a large increase in dog ownership. The National Sheep Association’s 2025 survey indicates that 96% of respondents have experienced between one and 10 incidents of sheep worrying in the last 12 months. That highlights the urgent need to modernise the legislation in order to address this issue. On average, respondents reported four sheep deaths per year due to sheep worrying by dogs—an increase on previous years—and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack. These figures do not account for miscarriages of lambs, or for the other secondary impacts of livestock worrying.

The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can have devastating outcomes and result in injury or death, which can have a detrimental impact on farmers. Livestock worrying can also have wider implications, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds being smothered. That demonstrates how harmful such incidents can be. It is clear that we need stronger measures to attack livestock worrying and the devastating effects on farmers and livestock, and this Bill will deliver these measures.

The Government recognise the distress that livestock worrying can cause animals and their keepers. All reported crime must be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts, so that perpetrators receive the appropriate penalties. This Bill amends the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which underpins livestock worrying offences and enforcement, and I will summarise the three main areas that the Bill will address before going into more detail on the measures.

The Bill will primarily focus on three areas. It will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly found. It will strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs, and the collection of evidence, to improve enforcement, and as a deterrent, it will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. Those three key areas will strengthen the legislation and deterrence around livestock worrying and attacks on livestock.

The Bill will broaden the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths. Dogs and dog walkers are commonly found walking on roads and paths, and this new measure will help to protect livestock when they are being moved—for instance, cows going into a milking parlour, or sheep being moved across the fields. That is an important new protection.

The Bill will extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. The British Alpaca Society estimates that there might be as many as 45,000 alpacas owned by members in England, and a further 20,000 owned by non-members.

The Bill will also amend the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. “Attacking” is part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.

The new police powers will be a huge help to the police. The primary focus of the Bill is to strengthen those powers to enable the police to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. They include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Furthermore, in a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association in 2025, 98% of respondents agreed that there was an urgent need for additional police powers—it is generally unheard of to get 98% of people to agree on something.

The police can currently only seize a dog found or suspected to have worried livestock for the purpose of identifying the owner. The police have limited powers at their disposal to address reoffending when the same dog is found attacking livestock repeatedly, or the same owner has several dogs that worry livestock. Under this Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again, they have the power to seize and detain the dog. The dog can be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. We hope this power will address the issue of reoffending and dog owners who disregard the law, and will help to address the most serious instances of livestock worrying.

The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that sample or impression might provide evidence of an offence. The sample or impression could then be used as evidence to support a prosecution. Samples may be retained until either the police investigation into a potential offence has finished or court proceedings have finished or been withdrawn.

Finally, the Bill will extend the powers of entry. Under current legislation, the police can enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog owner. The reasons for extending the power of entry in relation to this offence is to ensure that the police can collect the necessary evidence to prosecute these crimes. The Bill will extend police powers to allow the police to enter and search a premises, with a warrant, to seize and take samples from a dog if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. The expanded powers of entry will allow the police to seize items that may be evidence of an offence—for example, a dog collar, or a towel with blood on it.

These powers are important for improving the conviction rate and reducing the prevalence of reoffending, so that we protect our respected farmers from the horrific consequence of livestock worrying. In the light of our improvements to enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying more effectively, we hope that livestock owners or bystanders will feel encouraged to report more incidents, and will know that the reports will be taken seriously.

The Bill will also increase penalties. The penalty is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will determine an appropriate fine amount, in line with sentencing guidelines, that takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The courts can already impose a compensation order on an offender, requiring them to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence. Compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence, including any representations made by the offender or prosecutor. There is no limit on the value of a single compensation order handed down to an offender, and the Bill will not change that.

A survey carried out by the National Farmers Union in 2025 found that in England, the midlands was the worst-hit region by cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £425,000. It was followed by the south-east, where the cost is an estimated £225,000. Farm animals in the south-east of England worth an estimated £139,000 were severely injured or killed in dog attacks in 2024. That is up 23% on the previous year. Furthermore, the National Sheep Association found that more than half of all respondents felt that increased fines, punishment and seizure powers would reduce sheep worrying incidents.

Of course, many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. Dog owners have a responsibility to ensure that their dogs are kept safe and under control. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. It says that visitors should always check local signs, as there are locations where they must keep their dog on a lead for part or all of the year. We recognise that there is a careful balance to be struck between protecting the wider public and their livestock from dog attacks, the freedom that people enjoy when they are walking their dogs, and, of course, the welfare of those dogs, including their freedom to exhibit normal behaviours.

The new police powers that the Bill will introduce will ensure an effective response to reported cases. They are vital measures that will help improve enforcement and protect the livelihoods of our valuable farming communities. Countryside access came up. The Bill would cover a scenario in which the person in charge of the dog caused it to attack livestock that had strayed on to a road or path. The 1953 Act protects livestock that may have strayed from one field to another if it is agricultural land as defined in the Act, subject to certain exemptions and offences.

The countryside code encourages people to check local signs and leave gates as they find them. The public right of way guidance highlights the responsibility of landowners regarding waymarking and signs, including the responsibility to use signs to warn people of dangers that are not obvious. The welfare of livestock is the responsibility of the owner, and they must take necessary measures to protect their livestock. Owners of livestock should of course take reasonable care to see that their livestock do not stray. There is a common law duty on anyone who keeps animals in a field next to a road to take reasonable care to prevent their escape, in order to avoid damage. This private Member’s Bill focuses on delivering the greatest impact by improving the police’s powers to investigate and support convictions.

Let me say, in answer to a question asked, that it will not be an offence to fail to report an incident. We would always encourage dog walkers to be responsible in such circumstances by bringing an incident to the attention of the livestock owner and the police, so that the owner can ensure that the injured livestock can receive the care or treatment they need. That is important for welfare reasons. It would be difficult to enforce a legal reporting requirement.

On other species being protected, sheep are specifically protected from dogs at large because they are most susceptible to distress in the presence of dogs, and are prone to abort their young when distressed. Primary legislation could be considered in future to add other species if necessary. That point was raised by one of my hon. Friends. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock, and we would encourage this practice to ensure that dogs and walkers are kept safe.

It is important to note that the Bill will not amend section 1(2A) of the 1953 Act, which sets out an exemption to section 1(2)(c) for guide dogs. Owners of a guide dog will remain exempt from criminal liability if their guide dog is at large in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. However, the offence of chasing or attacking livestock applies to guide dogs, and the owner of the guide dog would be committing an offence if the dog chased or attacked livestock. Ultimately, it remains for the courts to decide what can be considered a guide dog.

I recognise the strong public support for animal welfare in this country, as reflected in the volume of correspondence received by my Department and the sustained engagement from stakeholders. Key stakeholders, including the livestock and farming sector, the animal welfare sector, the police and the veterinary sector, have been engaged in respect of these measures.