MPs back move to protect llamas and alpacas from dog attacks
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
10 minutes ago
- Scotsman
How former leader Jeremy Corbyn threatens to become Labour's worst nightmare
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Overshadowed by the sheer size of the majority secured by Labour at last year's general election, the result in Islington North was largely dismissed as a minor blemish. The party's candidate had been soundly beaten by an independent, in what may have been an early sign that some traditional Labour voters were unimpressed by Keir Starmer. Of course, they might have gone along with the prevailing trend at that election had the independent in question not been Jeremy Corbyn, the seat's long-standing MP, the party's former leader and a champion of the hard-left. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He had been blocked from standing for Labour in the election after refusing to fully accept an Equality and Human Rights Commission report into allegations of antisemitism, which found the party had broken equality law under his leadership. Jeremy Corbyn speaks during a rally protesting against benefit cuts last month (Picture: Leon Neal) | Getty Images A terrifying prospect Corbyn might have gradually faded from national view, but talk of forming a new party with Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana – one of seven MPs to have the Labour whip removed within weeks of the election after rebelling over the two-child benefit cap – could see him find a new platform. After Sultana said the duo would "co-lead the founding" of a new party, Corbyn issued a statement pretty much confirming the news, although he waited more than 17 hours to do so. "The democratic foundations of a new kind of political party will soon take shape,' he said. 'Discussions are ongoing...' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In their wildest dreams and Starmer's worst nightmares, they will do to Labour what Reform UK are currently doing to the Conservatives, raising the terrifying prospect of a future election in which the essential choice is between Nigel Farage and Corbyn for Prime Minister. However, returning to the real world, a hard-left alternative might actually help Labour by getting rid of dyed-in-the-wool socialists from what is basically a social democratic party. On the other hand, even if it takes just a few percentage points of the vote off Labour that could, on current polls, virtually hand the next election to Reform.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The winners and losers of Labour's first year in power
It is one year since Labour's 'loveless landslide' and already millions of individuals, and the economy, are suffering. Last summer, Rachel Reeves ominously declared the Tories had left Britain with a £22bn 'black hole' in the public finances. It was a sobering shift in tone from the Chancellor who had spent the months prior promising no tax rises for 'working people'. And it left her walking a careful tightrope of raising money without breaking the party's central pledge: to leave alone income tax, VAT and National Insurance paid by workers. In doing so, she clumsily launched tax raids on pensioners, home buyers, business owners and farmers instead. Here, Telegraph Money speaks to the winners and losers after a year of Labour. Losers Pensioners Ten months on from Ms Reeves's maiden Budget, Peter Ferguson has still not forgiven her for ripping up his carefully-laid financial planning. The Chancellor used the Budget to bring pensions into the scope of inheritance tax, upending millions of calibrated retirement plans. Mr Ferguson, 68, from Edinburgh, had hoped to pass on most of his £800,000 pot to his children. He believes the changes amount to 'state theft'. 'The Tories told people to make far greater provision for themselves because the state can no longer be relied on to provide for everyone, and I agree with that,' he says. 'But now there is no incentive to save to provide for your family – I would be better off going to restaurants, drinking nice wine and going on holidays.' He adds: 'If I have paid tax throughout my life, as I have to by law, then inheritance tax and stealing from pension funds is just reprehensible. I am determined not to let this government have a penny more than I have already.' He intends to take the tax-free lump sum of £200,000 and spend the rest on 'assets that will hopefully accrue value', like paintings. Farmers Farms were previously exempt from inheritance tax under agricultural property relief. However, changes brought in by the Government mean that, from April 2026, the relief will only apply to the first £1m of combined agricultural and business property. After that, the relief drops to 50pc. David Barton's Gloucestershire farm will now attract an inheritance tax bill of £800,000 when it is passed on to his son, Ben, 34. The 57-year-old says: 'I am disappointed because we engaged with Labour politicians before the election. All the noises were very promising, and things were okay until the Budget. That was a massive blow to the industry. It has completely knocked the stuffing out of us.' At a union meeting last year, Mr Barton raised his concerns directly with Steve Reed, the Environment Secretary. 'My question to him was, 'Can you tell me when I am going to die? Because I don't know when I am going to die, and if I get it wrong, the business is gone.' 'There are many better ways that you could raise this revenue from the farming industry than the way you are doing it. You can't help but wonder if this is just genuinely trying to raise revenue, or is there something a little bit vindictive about this?' Labour also slashed sustainable farming incentives – grants for farmers who adopted sustainable practices to protect the environment. 'It's really destabilised everything,' he adds. 'There's been a massive drive towards environmental improvement, and I think as farmers we have done a tremendous job. But the funding that supports that is absolutely required. It's an all-time low for morale within the farming community.' Property buyers Labour's young voter base had hoped the party might offer them help on to the property ladder. But instead, the Chancellor ignored them, neglecting to extend a stamp duty discount which sent the tax rate soaring. It means first-time buyer, Emily Fishburn, 29, now faces paying an extra £1,000 on her new home in Nuneaton. She says: 'We put an offer in before the threshold changed, which is so frustrating, because now we have that as an additional cost we weren't anticipating. 'I thought it was going to get better for first-time buyers under Labour, but it's got a lot harder. 'We've been saving for a house for five years – we'd rather spend that money on extra things for the house, like a sofa, things for the kitchen. We'll have to make do with sitting on the floor for a while.' Landlords Britain's property investors have been attacked by politicians of all stripes ever since the Tories began whittling away their tax breaks. Unsurprisingly, landlords' fortunes have not improved much under Labour. It is pressing ahead with plans to force landlords to meet energy efficiency standards by the end of the decade. Many are expected to spend tens of thousands insulating properties, or sell up and exit the market. And landlords have been left despairing over the Renters' Rights Bill. The legislation will end 'no fault' evictions, give tenants longer notice periods and restrict rent increases. The Bill will not apply in Scotland, where rent controls and eviction restrictions have already been put in place by the Scottish National Party. Derek Tyson, 54, is a buy-to-let landlord with dozens of properties across Lothian, Fife and Angus – a portfolio built up gradually over 30 years. He says: 'Labour is a total mess. Landlords have been kicked in the guts for years, and they've done nothing to ease the burden.' The Government is also ramping up its 'Making Tax Digital' project, requiring around 900,000 landlords and freelancers earning over £20,000 to report their taxes quarterly, rather than every year, from April 2026. Mr Tyson sees it as yet another regulatory hoop for landlords like him to jump through. 'It's just going to put up costs. If I can't recoup it in rents, I'll get out of the market. You can't keep getting more money from landlords without affecting tenants,' he says. 'You can't keep taking money from people – it doesn't grow the economy. But this is what Labour does.' Mr Tyson believes the Government should focus on building more homes, rather than punishing landlords. 'If there's less stock, rents go up. It's GCSE economics. I don't understand why Rachel Reeves and these guys don't get it.' Second home owners Since April 1, local authorities have been able to use additional powers to charge double council tax on second homes. While it was a Tory policy, Labour rubbed salt in the wound by increasing the stamp duty surcharge for second home buyers from 3pc to 5pc. Peter Drown, 75, has been renting a flat near St Paul's in London for the past six months. He lives in Truro, Cornwall, with his wife, but spends every other week working in the office in the City as an accountant. As a result, he has been hit with a £4,246.90 council tax bill. In total, his bill for both properties is now £8,750 – now, he says he will give up his flat. 'I've been working in the City since 1969, and I've paid a lot of tax,' says Mr Drown. 'This is not a real second home, it is not a holiday home.' He adds: 'If you lived in somewhere like Birmingham, where the council is bust, you could almost understand it. But the City of London has plenty of money. Why are they messing around with the likes of me?' Business owners One of Labour's most unpopular policies has been its increase to National Insurance contributions paid by businesses. The rate they pay on an employee's salary rose from 13.8pc to 15pc, and the salary threshold at which point National Insurance kicks in also fell from £9,100 to £5,000 (though this was accompanied by a rise in the 'employment allowance', which helps the smallest employers offset the rising costs). Hugh Vinney, 37, chief executive of online private school Minerva Virtual Academy, is bitterly disappointed. He became a first-time Labour voter last year, feeling disillusioned with a Conservative government that he says hadn't offered much to business owners like him. 'In the business world, there was a lot of hope, particularly on the small business side, because they were talking about 'growth, growth, growth,' so I was excited for Labour's agenda,' he says. 'Pre-election, they were talking to and consulting small businesses, but by the time of the Budget, they had completely forgotten about us.' The National Insurance raid, as well as the increased minimum wage, has forced Mr Vinney to 'pull up the drawbridge in terms of hiring'. He adds: 'It means you have to be much more careful about wage increases, which is not what you want to be doing in a growing business. National Insurance and minimum wage changes are preventing us from being able to reward people for hard work.' Britain, Mr Vinney says, is 'a country where it is not a good place to be an entrepreneur', and that anyone wanting to start a business should do so elsewhere. 'Small businesses are an engine for growth. But we have been abandoned.' Private school parents Television presenter, Ana Boulter, 47, has two children at independent schools. She has been left feeling betrayed by Labour's decision to impose 20pc VAT on school fees. Ms Boulter's daughter is autistic, and, like many parents, she worries local state schools do not have the resources or expertise to deal with her child's needs. She is now considering home schooling after her children's fees rose by 21pc in a year. She also takes issue with the perception that parents choose to send their children to private schools simply to make them get ahead in life. She says: 'The people who are really buying advantage are those who can afford to buy houses next to outstanding state schools. What parents in the independent sector are doing is buying an education that suits their children's needs which they believe the state can't provide. 'The way ministers have spoken about private education, do they not think about how this affects the children? They are actively pushing a group of people out and saying, 'You don't matter, you don't count, you are not important, you are insignificant'. You are a political smear on our outlook.' Winners Few would describe themselves as 'winners' from Ms Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer's tenure so far, but some groups have undeniably been given extra support. Net zero supporters Ed Miliband and his Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was a surprising winner of Ms Reeves's first spending review. The Warm Homes Discount, which some speculated would be cut, was expanded. And the budget for the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which doles out £7,500 grants to households who want to install a heat pump, was also raised by £1.8bn. It comes too late for Tim Adams, 67, who has already made use of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), a now-defunct scheme which paid early adopters for generating renewable energy over a seven-year period. Mr Adams believes Labour's decision to continue funding grants specifically for heat pumps, rather than generalised payback schemes, is a shift in the right direction. He says: 'The RHI was in some ways more generous, but now the £7,500 comes directly off the cost, and that will be preferable to those who can't pay the money up front. 'Solar panels and batteries stack up in a way that you should be able to do it on your own, and in the same way, electric car prices have come down to the point you'd have to question how much that still needs to be subsidised. ' People are so negative about heat pumps – a lot of it through misunderstanding. They don't understand what the potential is, and I think that's a huge problem for the Government. The messaging just isn't cutting through.' Public sector workers One of Labour's first acts in Government was to hand public sector workers a pay rise – to the tune of £6.9bn. The decision to capitulate to pay review bodies briefly quelled frequent strikes by teachers and doctors. However, unions have warned that further industrial action is likely unless the Government agrees to an above-inflation pay rise in 2026. Dr Erin Gourley, a psychiatric registrar, welcomed her 5.4pc pay award this year. The 33-year-old mother-of-two says: 'Wes Streeting [the Health Secretary] is saying lots of positive things, and that's a lot better than what we were getting under the last government.' However, she still feels worse off than before the election. 'I would say finances have progressively become more stretched over the year, and we are having to be a bit more cautious with our spending,' she says. 'One of the things that can make it worse is that I do a lot of out-of-hours work, a lot of evenings, nights and weekends, and my childcare needs are more than most jobs. Balancing that is particularly difficult.' The British Medical Association estimates resident doctor pay remains 21pc lower today in real terms than it was in 2008. Doctors in Dr Gourley's pay grade earn around £61,825 a year, according to the BMA. Dr Gourley, who lives in Coventry, believes Labour must reverse this decline. 'In terms of where I was in 2015 when I started working, I don't think the pay has increased commensurately with the skills I've taken on as I've become more senior,' she says. A 6pc pay rise was awarded to junior doctors, 3.6pc for other NHS staff, 3.25pc for members of the Armed Forces, and 4pc for teachers and prison officers. Senior civil servants will also receive a 3.25pc pay rise, while school staff such as teaching assistants, caterers and caretakers will receive 3.2pc. The Government was approached for comment.
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
How Keir Starmer walked into avoidable trap set by Tories years ago
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... I was in London long enough this week to be reminded why, when in parliament, I used to regard it as the worst month of the year – sweltering hot, grossly overcrowded and business dragging on towards the recess. For Labour MPs, that break will offer some blessed relief from a very tough year and not at all what most of them had anticipated. There are plenty who never expected to be there and will already have one eye on future career options. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Heat does not encourage cool, calm decision-making and may have contributed to this week's 'things that should never have happened'. The private emotions of a Chancellor should never have been exposed to public view. A government with a huge majority should never have to pull a major piece of legislation at the last moment, and so on. People protest against Labour's plan to cut disability benefits, which was gutted after a major backbench rebellion against it (Picture: Carl Court) | Getty Images Failure of basic competence None of this is irreversible. Politics is a series of small earthquakes with not many dead. Sure, this week's debacle registered higher than most on the Richter scale but apocalyptic interpretations can quickly subside if lessons are learned and acted upon. Get the second year right and this week's pundits of doom might, in 12 months' time, be recalling the welfare climb-down as a turning point, rather than a disaster in its own right. It all depends on what happens from here. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the way they concluded, this week's events, which saw a successful Labour backbench rebellion against the government's plan to cut disability benefits, represented a failure of basic competence more than of policy. The job of the whips is to tell Downing Street whether legislation can be delivered and at what cost. Either these messages were not delivered or they were ignored. It's important to know which and make sure it never happens again. If that means changes of personnel, then so be it. A week before Tuesday's finale, it should have been clear that it was too late for the usual formula of 'concessions' and arm-twisting to overcome a rebellion. The whole thing should have been shelved with whatever dignity was still available. It would have been embarrassing but not nearly as bad as the alternative. A narrative about listening to voices of MPs and the disabled would have had credibility. Instead, ploughing ahead with what turned into the maximum display of weakness was the worst of all managerial options. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Tories' many poisoned chalices But what about the policy itself? Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the benefits system needs reform but also that it is an arena which must be tip-toed into with sensitivity – not headlines about saving £5 billion a year which raises the obvious question of who is going to pay for it. It is literally impossible to cut any benefit without provoking an outcry, so a government must be very sure of its ground before it starts. That, presumably, is why the Tories let personal independence payments (PIPs) grow and grow without doing anything about it, since introducing them in 2013. It was one of many poisoned chalices they were delighted to leave for their successors, which was another obvious reason why Labour then had to handle it with great care. The economy is not going to collapse along with the Bill which is, in itself, confirmation of why these reforms should not have been rushed into in a way Labour MPs found unsaleable. For all the political damage that has been done, the challenge has not gone away. In a sense, it is easier to recognise its scale through the more comprehensible Scottish numbers and the fact that the devolved budget is relatively finite. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the benefits bill will rise, in real terms, from £6.1bn in 2024-25 to over £9bn by 2029-30 with our version of PIP, the adult disability payment, costing £5bn. A risk to Scotland's finances There's a lot of politics at play, of course, with the Scottish Government anxious to present itself as more generous and, hence, caring. The other interpretation is that it is simply resistant to reform and is doing thousands of Scots no favours by encouraging them into the benefits system rather than into work, where that is a realistic objective. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Either way, the fact is that an extra £3bn being spent on benefits is £3bn that will not be spent on other social goods. As Holyrood's cross-party Public Audit Committee told the Auditor General this week: 'We agree with your assessment that 'social security spending is increasingly outstripping Barnett consequentials in Scotland' and that this is a risk to the Scottish Government's financial position.' So the issue can be kicked down the road but it does not go away. Whether at Westminster or Holyrood, the assumption that a system which sees more than 1,000 new claimants for PIP/ADP a day can be left unreformed may seem virtuous in the short term but it comes at costs which cannot be concealed for ever. Making a botched job of reform has been foolish. Pretending that there is no need for reform is irresponsible. Clear thinking required There are plenty exonerating factors for Keir Starmer's government in the events of the past year. They expected a grim economic legacy and it proved to be much, much worse than even that. The extent to which international events and demands for defence spending overtook the agenda could not have been predicted. The many good things that have been done have been undeservedly overshadowed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
