
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


Spectator
12 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why women trust Farage more than Starmer
Labour's attack dogs have Nigel Farage firmly in their sights. A vote for Reform will leave women and girls at risk from all manner of online nasties, is their latest salvo. Apparently, only Labour can offer us women the protection we need. Well, as one such woman, I would far sooner have a pint with Farage than be looked after by Starmer. First came technology secretary Peter Kyle, who, at the end of July, accused the Reform leader of 'wilful disregard for the safety of children online' after he proposed repealing the Online Safety Act. Angela Rayner then ramped up the panic. Scrapping online safety laws would enable 'a vile, misogynistic culture on social media' by opening the floodgates on revenge porn, the Deputy Prime Minister proclaimed. This would 'fail a generation of young women,' she added for good measure. And now this week sees the launch of a Labour attack ad scurrilously linking Farage to Andrew Tate – a self-declared 'misogynist' and 'sexist' facing charges, which he denies, of rape and human trafficking in more than one country – after Farage discussed Tate's appeal to young men in a podcast. The crude message being drummed home to voters is that women and girls will not be safe with Farage in charge. That Labour needs to confuse online and real world harms, that it seeks to blur the boundary between the actions of Jimmy Savile and internet pornography, not only speaks of desperation, it is insulting to women. There isn't a woman alive who doesn't know the difference between a podcast interview and being intimidated or physically threatened in real life. Or, for that matter, between even the vilest online content and the actions of a rapist or paedophile. To suggest women don't know this – and need to be protected in the online world just like girls – is patronising in the extreme. In case Labour's PR team needs reminding, women are morally and intellectually equal to men. Of course there are things online I would not want children to see. But, as a mother, I consider it my role – not the job of government ministers – to protect my daughter. Because, let's be honest, when it comes to protecting women and girls in real life, the Labour government does not have a leg to stand on. Just this weekend, while Rayner was busy arguing Farage would fail women, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy joined Wigan's Pride march sporting a 'Protect the Dolls' T-shirt, 'doll' being slang for a man who 'passes' as a woman. Was a government minister really suggesting that males should be allowed access to women's single sex spaces – presumably including toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards – places where women really are vulnerable? So much for women's safety. And if we're discussing risks to girls, what has Labour done about the Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs that have preyed on working class girls in towns across Britain? Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, huffed with irritability when forced to listen to Conservative Katie Lam's Parliamentary plea for justice for the victims of 'racially and religiously aggravated' crimes. When the issue of grooming gangs was raised on Radio 4's Any Questions, Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, dismissively retorted, 'Oh, we want to blow that little trumpet now do we,' and 'let's get that dog whistle out shall we'. And let's not forget that Starmer initially ruled out a national inquiry into grooming gangs, accusing those calling for one of jumping on a 'far-right bandwagon'. So much for the safety of girls. Labour has nothing to offer women and girls other than promises of censorship. Restricting free speech online might suit the current government but it is scurrilous to use women's safety as a reason for this control. In any case, patronising women while smearing Farage could backfire spectacularly. With women now leading protests against asylum seekers being housed in hotels, Reform is targeting female voters directly. Women are listening: latest polls suggest that Reform is gaining ground not just among women but among young women in particular. Even trendy women's mag Cosmopolitan has been forced to admit that 'Nigel Farage and co are winning over more female voters.' It seems I'm not the only one who would prefer a pint with Farage to being looked after by Starmer. Joanna Williams is an academic and author. Follow her on Substack here

The National
43 minutes ago
- The National
A single electoral outcome could open up many routes to independence
The good news for the indy movement is that it should be possible to produce a single electoral result that includes almost all the trigger conditions for all the proposed routes to independence. With the right result we could try the weakest approach first. If that first option failed, we'd have another option available, and if that failed, yet another option. And there's no reason why, as each option becomes 'live', the whole of the indy movement can't get behind the proposal and apply political and civic pressure to help make the case. READ MORE: Mike Small: Beyond Sturgeon, Salmond and the centrist collapse The main desired outcomes I hear are: SNP seat majority, indy seat supermajority, evidence of voter majority and evidence of voter majority emerging in the list alone. The last two require that a vote for a declared party of independence be regarded as a vote for independence. A perfectly legitimate expectation, one supported by international law. And the stronger the result, the more leverage it will have. All the proposals will be there after the vote, but if we don't get a result that allows us to pursue these proposals, we're going nowhere. No matter how inspired or outlandish the proposal, we're going nowhere if we don't have the result we need. The most important objective is to get the indy vote out on the day. Polling of indy electoral voting intentions adds up to 45%. Polling for a straight Yes/No vote has Yes on 55%. Spot the problem? Likely the only proposal that will get its trigger condition met is the SNP proposal. That needs to change. READ MORE: Richard Walker: Nicola Sturgeon's memoir gives plenty of insight but isn't very frank Achieving a seat majority is relatively simple due to the UK's use of a pluralistic voting system. This first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger, disproportionate share of seats. Notice I use the word 'party'. Some folk get upset about the indy camp, which is made up of several parties, winning too big a share of seats overall. Don't. The SNP will win more seats than it should, but only for 56% of the available seats, unlike the Westminster version, where a party can win a disproportionate share of 100% of the seats. The other indy parties will win their proportionate share of the list seats based on how many votes each party gets. Though not completely proportionate, 44% of Holyrood seats are distributed on a proportional-representation basis. Which is a much fairer system. Every Scot has two votes. Every Scot has complete freedom about how they use those votes. READ MORE: Are the SNP taking my vote for granted like Labour used to? I say 'go for it'! Get all the results in the bag and let the various route proposers work their magic and achieve us our independence. The best way to win loads of seats and tick all the boxes? Make sure that every indy vote is cast in a way that can win seats for indy. This boils down to the Vote Indy strategy: In the constituencies, everyone indy votes for the SNP. On the list, everyone indy votes for any indy party that is NOT the SNP. This is the ONLY way to achieve the winning or trigger condition for each proposal. Please note the 'list referendum' idea is seriously flawed. First, there is no way to put the voting instructions on the ballot paper or include them in any official communication from the Electoral Commission. But a more glaring flaw is that if the Unionists win the vote in the constituencies, they can claim an equally valid win. It will be a one-all draw. Indy-voter majority needs to emerge in both constituency and list. Everyone indy needs to use both constituency and list votes. Any withholding of votes could wreck the outcome. Alistair Potter via email IN 1979, despite winning the referendum for Scottish devolution, the vote failed to clear the 40% ruling brought in by the Scots-born Labour MP for a London constituency George Cunningham. Because of this gerrymandering, the cause of devolution, never mind Scottish independence, was delayed for decades. History since then, and with no gerrymandering, has seen a devolved parliament established in Scotland, and an unsuccessful independence referendum, in the last 25ish years. READ MORE: SNP councillor hits back at 'lie' he defected to Reform UK One of the lessons learnt was to get the vote out, and that every – yes, EVERY – vote counts. So, why do I see the motion on the SNP conference agenda to only count SNP votes after the 2026 Holyrood election? Have no lessons been learnt? This is, in my opinion, pure lunacy. If we had taken this approach in 2014, we would have never got 45%, we would have alienated every other independence supporter who was not an SNP member, and in doing so received a larger defeat. Surely, as an independence party we want and need to gain the largest possible vote? A large positive vote only lends more power to our demands. As it stands, this motion is a vote for continued devolution and London control. Use the Yes support we have in Scotland or we stand to lose Scotland to London control for decades to come. Mr Swinney, Mr Brown and all who considered this a good idea, think again. Bill Golden Forfar


Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
Reform UK has a councillor in Swansea for the first time
Reform UK has a councillor in Swansea for the first time Councillor Francesca O'Brien has defected from the Welsh Conservatives Francesca O'Brien, who has joined Reform UK from the Welsh Conservatives after being elected as a Swansea councillor in 2022 (Image: Richard Youle ) Swansea has its first Reform UK councillor after councillor Francesca O'Brien, who represents Mumbles, joined the party. The former Welsh Conservative was first elected to the council in 2022 and described Reform UK as the only chance to break the 'Labour-Plaid consensus in Cardiff Bay and create a government in Wales that understands the concerns of ordinary people'. Councillor O'Brien had stood as a prospective Conservative MP for Gower in the 2019 general election, finishing second behind Labour's Tonia Antoniazzi. 'I'm proud to be announcing that I am joining Reform UK,' she said. "Reform UK is our only chance to finally break up the Labour/Plaid consensus in Cardiff Bay and create a government in Wales that understands the concerns of ordinary people.' Never miss a Swansea story by signing up to our newsletter here Councillor O'Brien said Reform UK was committed to ending 'the bleeding of millions of taxpayer pounds on things like empty Welsh Government buildings and pointless overseas offices' and would redirect that money back into Wales. She added: 'I continue to remain dedicated to my role as a councillor, determined to make our communities thrive, businesses boom and deliver a safe and vibrant community for our families to live and work.' Article continues below Reform UK said it now had 16 councillors in Wales, including two in Carmarthenshire. Councillor O'Brien has been an officer with the Royal Air Force air cadets for over 17 years and is a member of the Mumbles and South Gower Royal British Legion. She is also a Mumbles community councillor. A mother to two young boys, she said she also worked for 12 years in the motor industry and was involved in the farming sector for a time, working on a 'farm to fork' business in Gower. She is also the former deputy leader of the Welsh Conservatives in Swansea. Article continues below Councillor O'Brien's father, Richard Lewis, has served as councillor for Gower for decades as a Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat, and also sought the Gower parliamentary seat in 2005 on a UK Independence Party ticket. Mumbles has two other councillors – both Conservative – Will Thomas and Angela O'Connor.