MPs back move to protect llamas and alpacas from dog attacks
Dog owners already face a fine if their pet attacks or worries farm animals listed in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, such as cattle, sheep, pigs and horses.
But after a Commons debate, MPs have agreed to add 'camelids' to this list, giving llamas and alpacas in England and Wales similar protections as they have in Scotland.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which now faces further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date, will also see unlimited fines rolled out in dog attack cases, lifting a £1,000 cap.
'They're no laughing matter, alpacas and llamas,' Labour MP Peter Lamb said.
'The Inca empire never developed the wheel.
'The entirety of that empire was built off the back of alpacas and llamas and, as a result, they are an animal that's worthy of great respect.'
Mr Lamb said he had heard of 'pretty harrowing cases of what happened to that livestock' at a centre in Tilgate Park in Crawley, West Sussex, where he was the borough council leader.
'In one case, a sheep was just literally set on fire whilst still alive and while the Bill does not directly deal with that, I think some of the mentality that goes into disrespecting these animals is worthy of note,' he said.
'But what we have done is very often, far more often than that, had dogs set on these animals, or at least, people have not been in control of these.
'And we've eventually had to remove the sheep entirely from the publicly accessible areas on the basis of that.'
Conservative MP for Chester South and Eddisbury Aphra Brandreth, who proposed the private member's Bill, told the Commons: 'Livestock worrying, as we know, has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers.'
She added: 'The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries which are tragically often fatal.
'There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and young leading to hypothermia or starvation.
'I've seen pictures from farmers in my constituency where attacks have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive.
'The consequences, no matter what the scale of an attack, are profound.'
As part of the draft new law, authorities would get the powers to treat attacking livestock as separate to 'worrying', which includes chasing farm animals in a way which could cause injury, suffering or loss or 'diminution in their produce'.
The Bill would also expand the 1953 Act's scope, which applies on agricultural land, to roads and paths, where animals might be herded.
Labour MP Mike Reader praised Ms Brandreth for her 'responsible and balanced approach'.
The Northampton South MP said it was 'positive that this expands that definition to roads and paths, because it sets clear requirements that when someone is accessing land, particularly throughout Northamptonshire where there're so many paths that run through farmland, there's a clear definition in the law to both protect farmers but also to set clear boundaries for those who are perhaps walking their dogs… when they access farmland'.
Environment minister Emma Hardy said the Government was 'fully committed to supporting this important Bill as it progresses through the other place', before the Bill cleared the Commons at third reading.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of Gary Neville's money
As a footballer Gary Neville was not known for his versatility. He was a one-club man who trundled up and down the right flank like a plough-horse. So it is heartening to see him switching things up politically. This week he became the latest Labour supporter to turn on them over tax. 'I honestly don't believe […] companies and small businesses should be deterred from employing people,' said Neville, who owns several businesses alongside his punditry gigs. 'So, I think the National Insurance rise was one that I feel probably could have been held back.' Leaving to one side the fact that Sky viewers might not mind living without his rabid commentary, there is a delicious schadenfreude in watching Neville, a noisy Labour fan, change tack. Last June, he even proved his commitment by taking Keir Starmer up the Langdale Pikes for a campaign interview, in what must have been the most tedious man-marking job of his life. Until recently Rachel Reeves has been blessed in her enemies. When she and Starmer broke a manifesto promise to whack farmers with inheritance tax, they couldn't have hoped for a better opponent than Jeremy Clarkson. Here was not some sympathetic turnip-tender on the breadline but a celeb who was on the record as saying dodging IHT was a reason he bought a farm. Number 10 must have rejoiced again in March when Alexander Armstrong, arguably the pre-eminent primetime posho, complained about VAT on private school fees. His quip that he was feeling 'extremely poor' did not land well with those who were actually feeling extremely poor. Now, even Labour's fans are rethinking. Neville was not the first. In February, the Iceland boss Richard Walker, who had supported Reeves' Budget, warned that, while it was right to look at 'levelling the playing field on tax', the Government had 'parked its tractor in the wrong place going after hard-working British farmers'. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Even Gary Neville's. Lower the voting age? Here's a better solution Full credit to Jeremy Corbyn for waiting until Labour had said they would lower the voting age before announcing his new party. The Government thought letting 16 and 17-year-olds have a go at the ballot box might give them the edge in a few marginals. Instead, they might hand a sizeable bloc to Corbo and his band of plucky dreamers, not to mention the Greens and even Reform. Luckily for Keir Starmer I have a solution. Rather than lowering the voting age, he should introduce a cut-off. Many problems in the UK are, we're told, down to our limitless brigades of pensioners. As they don't have day jobs or Xboxes to occupy them, voting provides a welcome distraction. With gilded pensions and houses they bought for a shilling and sixpence, they vote to preserve their interests. But you have to reapply for your driving licence at 70, so why not your voting licence? A short quiz could determine eligibility: should we keep the triple lock? Should the winter fuel allowance be extended to summer? Is the PM too young? Are the policemen too young? Is the Pope too young? I can foresee objections, so how about a compromise: you have 50 eligible voting years in your life and you can choose when to use them. If you wanted to torch them on idealism at 16, you would be free to, but you wouldn't be able to defend your pension later. Either way, surely this would be the kind of bold move Starmer had in mind when he promised 'action, not words'. At least, that's what he told Gary Neville, on a hillside in Cumbria.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Is this a dagger which I see before me, King Charles?
I note that in the photo of King Charles visiting Scotland in your print edition (Monarch north of the glens, 29 July), he has a dagger tucked into his sock. How does this fit with the man arrested recently by armed police for carrying garden tools home from his allotment ? No doubt the king had armed police with him who took a different view of someone carrying a weapon in LowcockSandbach, Cheshire Nigel Farage is surely right that lawlessness on the streets is being compounded by the arrival of 'droves of unvetted men into our towns and cities' (Editorial, 29 July). Perhaps he could simply ask his supporters to stay at PaffordBowerhill, Wiltshire It might help to improve the status of oracy in schools (Editorial, 27 July) if teachers could rephrase the often-heard classroom instruction: 'Stop talking and get on with your work.'Pat Jones Author of Lipservice: The Story of Talk in Schools Rather than a green burial (Letters, 30 July), I hope that when my time comes, resomation (a process that uses water and a weak alkaline solution to break down human remains) will be widely available in this MarchingtonWhaley Bridge, Derbyshire Thank you to Martin Parr for his wonderful photo essay on 'voyaging', as cruising is now apparently called (Decks appeal, 28 July). I have never been a fan, but now I'm sure that 'voyaging' is not for VandecasteeleCupar, Fife Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
SNP approves giant wind farm despite backlash from Trump and RSPB
One of the world's largest offshore wind farms has been given the green light by the SNP only days after Donald Trump warned that 'ugly' turbines were destroying Scotland's beauty and seabirds. Scottish ministers gave consent to the Berwick Bank project, off the coast of East Lothian, where developers SSE Renewables want to construct up to 307 900ft-high turbines. On a windy day, the project aims to generate enough electricity to power every home in Scotland twice over and around 17pc of residences across the UK. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, welcomed the decision, and the Government said enough offshore wind farms had now been approved to meet green targets. But the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said it was a 'very dark day' for seabirds in the area, over concerns tens of thousands will be killed by the turbines. It warned that the wind farm lies close to Bass Rock, the world's largest gannet colony, and to the Isle of May, a national nature reserve that is home to a large colony of puffins, plus terns, gulls and many migratory species. The charity said that the 'terrible decision' would make it easier to get planning permission for other offshore wind farms in the area and this could 'catapult' some species 'towards extinction'. The announcement came only three days after Mr Trump used a visit to Scotland to warn that wind farms were 'destroying the beauty' of the country's fields and waterways. Calling them 'ugly monsters' that produced 'the most expensive form of energy', the US president claimed he had limited the construction of 'windmills' in the US because they ' kill all your birds.' The Scottish Government's own assessment estimated that the project will kill 261 gannets, 815 kittiwakes, 2808 guillemots, 66 puffins and 154 razorbills per year throughout the 35-year lifetime of the development. SNP ministers said their decision to approve the scheme was subject to SSE Renewables producing a detailed seabird 'compensation plan' outlining how any 'adverse impacts' would be tackled. This will have to be rubber-stamped before construction of the turbines starts. But RSPB Scotland said it was unclear how the 'compensation plan' would make up for thousands of seabirds being killed by the turbines. Anne McCall, the charity's director, said: 'This is a very dark day for seabirds. It is a terrible decision on a really bad development. 'Berwick Bank would be catastrophic for Scotland's globally important seabirds which are already facing alarming declines. 'We are incredibly concerned that [the] Scottish Government have granted consent for a project which could catapult some of Scotland's most-loved seabird species towards extinction.' Diarmid Hearns, the National Trust for Scotland's interim director of conservation and policy, said the decision was 'deeply disappointing'. 'More than that, we fear it will also be the cause of significant harm to the seabird colonies of St Abb's Head national nature reserve and elsewhere on the coastline,' he added. Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister, said: 'The decision to grant consent to Berwick Bank is a major step in Scotland's progress towards achieving net zero and tackling the climate crisis, as well as supporting national energy security and growing our green economy.' She added: 'We will continue to work closely with the developer and key stakeholders, including those working in fishing and conservation – to minimise the impact of the development on the marine environment and other marine users – and balance the needs of people and nature.' Mr Miliband said: 'We welcome this decision, which puts us within touching distance of our offshore wind targets to deliver clean power by 2030 – boosting our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. 'We need to take back control of our energy and more offshore wind getting the green light marks a huge step forward in Britain's energy security and getting bills down for good.' Mr Miliband wants between 43GW and 50GW of offshore wind by 2030, with only 16GW operational so far. The Berwick Bank project would deliver an additional 4.1 GW. That would bring the generating capacity of consented wind farms in the planning pipeline to 28GW – enough to meet Mr Miliband's target if they are all built. SSE Renewables said the project has the potential to create 9,300 direct and indirect jobs in the UK at 'peak construction', around 4,650 of which would be in Scotland. Stephen Wheeler, the firm's managing director, said: 'Berwick Bank has the potential to rapidly scale-up Scotland's operational renewable energy capacity and can accelerate the delivery of home-grown, affordable and secure clean energy to UK consumers from Scottish offshore wind, helping meet the UK's clean power ambition by 2030.' Before his first term as president, Mr Trump lost a long-running battle at Holyrood and in the courts to prevent the construction of turbines off the coast of his golf resort in Aberdeenshire. Although energy policy is decided by the UK Government, ministers at Holyrood have control over planning, including final say over which schemes get the green light.
