Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Friday 29th November 2024
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberAnimal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As we know, tens of thousands of puppies are illegally smuggled into the UK every year; it is a huge animal welfare problem. This Bill will help to close the issue of having mutilations in dogs. As a veterinary surgeon, I see many dogs with cropped ears and docked tails—acts that are illegal to perform in the UK. People are performing those acts in the UK then claiming that the puppies have been brought in from abroad. If we ban puppies coming in from abroad with those mutilations, it will be of huge benefit to animal welfare.
The Bill will also protect public health, because we know that the tens of thousands of dogs being brought in are not being tested for diseases such as rabies, which can affect people. This is also about serious organised crime: preventing tens of thousands of puppies being brought into the UK will help us to tackle the criminal gangs doing those acts.
In the interests of time, I will finish by saying that I am pleased to have cross-party support on this issue as well as the support of the entire veterinary profession. I thank the Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association for all the work they did to help to make this happen.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Animal welfare unites us in humanity. As a veterinary surgeon, a Member of Parliament and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I can proudly say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition strongly support this Bill in the interests of animal health and welfare.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and thank him for bringing forward this important Bill.
This Government take the issue of pet smuggling seriously. Earlier this year, we made a manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling, and that is exactly what we will do. I am delighted to announce that the Government will be fully supporting the passage of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill through Parliament. We stand ready to work with the hon. Gentleman to clamp down on deceitful pet sellers who prioritise profit over welfare.
This Bill will crack down on pet smuggling by closing loopholes in the current pet travel rules. At present, illegal importers of dogs, cats and ferrets often exploit loopholes to bring in animals under the guise of genuine owners travelling with their pets. The Bill will close those loopholes by reducing the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain by a person under the pet travel rules. The limit will be reduced from five pets per person to five pets per vehicle, and three pets per foot or air passenger.
The Bill will also provide us with powers to crack down on low-welfare imports of pets. We will first use those powers to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant and mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain. At the same time, we will raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain, which will be set at six months. We will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain must be linked to the movement of its owner. To move under the pet travel rules going forward, the pet and owner will have to travel within five days of each other.
In the interests of time, I again thank the hon. Member for Winchester for taking forward this important Bill and look forward to working together to progress it through the House.
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) wish to come back in?
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesAnimal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. The first one is pretty obvious: as far as I am concerned, we can remove jackets if we so wish. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 1
Regulations about bringing dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert—
“(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee today. I also want to thank Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all the officials, and everyone else who helped draw up the Bill, including my team in my parliamentary office. Many veterinary and animal welfare organisations contributed to our discussions over the last few months.
I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. Ending puppy smuggling is an aim of three major parties, so I am pleased that together we are committed to tackling the trade. The Bill aims to address the issues of illegal puppy smuggling and low-welfare movements of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom. Evidently, we are a nation of animal lovers. A survey conducted last year by the PDSA showed that 51% of UK adults own a pet, and I contribute to that statistic. At home we have Frank, a border terrier cross pug who is now 15 years old, and I was able to wish him happy birthday in Westminster Hall the other day. We also have Moose, an 11-month-old labrador; my partner Emma is doing the bulk of the training, which is pretty tough.
As the mental health spokesman for the Lib Dems, I have long been aware of the mental health benefits of owning pets. In veterinary practice, we often find that people come in who might be a widower or who might live alone with a pet. Certainly, during lockdown, many people told us that it would have been unbearable had they not had the company of their pet. We sometimes underestimate just how important being able to own a pet is for people’s wellbeing.
During my time practising as a veterinary surgeon, I met many members of the public who had bought a new puppy and discovered afterwards that it was potentially smuggled in from abroad—they had absolutely no idea when they went to buy it. A survey showed that about half of adverts online are for potentially smuggled puppies when people think they are buying one from the UK. This is not a niche problem; it is a huge problem.
It is clear how much pets mean to people across the country. The pet travel and import rules are there to protect our pets’ health and welfare. They ensure safe travel for pets and assistance dogs with their owners when relocating to the UK to settle in their new homes. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. The number of non-commercial movements of pets has risen dramatically over the last decade, and with that, the risk of fraudulent activity. Data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency showed that in 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britian. It is important to highlight that, under the current pet travel rules, there is a limit of five pets per person, but deceitful traders abuse that rule by claiming ownership of up to five pets each, which allows them to cram large numbers of animals into vehicles for transport into Great Britain in a single trip.
Evidence from stakeholders suggests that the increased demand for pets during the covid-19 pandemic has also led to a considerable increase in the illegal trade of puppies. The welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised, with puppies being separated from their mothers far too young and transported into Great Britain in sub-par, unsafe conditions.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks eloquently about the plight of puppies being transported into the United Kingdom. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats, and the proud owner of two cats, Clement Catlee and Mo Meowlam, I can also attest to the positive benefits that they bring to mental health.
On the transport of cats into the UK, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a significant rise in the number of purebred and pedigree cats over the last five years? Last year, for the first time, the percentage of pedigree and purebred cats obtained, at 45%, overtook the number of moggies, which is currently at 43%. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that stress in cats is often very serious, and that travel is particularly stressful for them?
The Chair
I realise that we had to get the cat names in, but may I ask for interventions to be brief? The hon. Lady is of course welcome to try to catch my eye if she wants to make a longer contribution.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Lady is completely right that the surge in demand for pedigree cats has also led to a surge in demand for the illegal import of cats, and cats struggle more medically with stress than most other animals.
Paired with the illegal trade of puppies is the emerging practice of moving heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain to sell their litters. There is anecdotal evidence that these animals are brought into Great Britain to give birth and then transported back to breed again in low-welfare conditions abroad. If we do not act now to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, it is a worry that traders may turn to this tactic when we raise the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens. The British Veterinary Association reported last year that one in five vets reported seeing illegally imported puppies in the previous 12 months.
There is also a concerning demand for importing cropped and docked dogs into Great Britain, even though it has rightly been illegal to carry out a non-exempt mutilation within Great Britain for more than 15 years. That loophole creates a smokescreen for ear cropping and tail docking to be carried out illegally in the UK, where it is not done by a vet and probably not done under anaesthetic, causing a huge amount of physical and psychological damage. The loophole allows individuals to claim that these dogs have been legally imported. Ear cropping reports have increased sevenfold in the past five years, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill will provide the powers to improve welfare for our beloved pets, including powers to close these loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders and prevent these abhorrent pet-smuggling practices.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and all those involved for bringing this legislation to close those loopholes. I have two cats myself, Cookie and Sprinkles, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his private Member’s Bill that will allow a safe practice for people to have pets, which will rightfully help their mental health. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Bill is vital and much needed.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am really enjoying all the cat names—that is a very good reason for introducing the Bill on its own. Although this is a huge animal welfare issue, we should also acknowledge that, because these dogs and cats are being brought in illegally, it is a public health issue, as they are clearly not being tested, checked or registered, so there is the risk of them bringing zoonotic diseases such as rabies and Brucella into the UK. So that we can consider the Bill in more detail, I will now run through its eight clauses.
The Chair
Order. Just the one we are discussing at the moment, and we will return to the other clauses later.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
Clause 1 creates a regulation-making power that will allow the Government to introduce measures through secondary legislation to tackle low-welfare movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom from third countries. Importantly, the clause gives the Government the ability to introduce regulations to respond dynamically to pet smuggling practices as they evolve in the future. We know that illicit traders are quick to react to legislative changes and find ways to circumvent new restrictions, so the ability to impose restrictions to protect animal welfare both now and in the future will be important and will ensure that we can tackle illegal activity and pet smuggling quickly and effectively.
Subsection (1) empowers an appropriate national authority to make regulations about the bringing into the UK of dogs, cats or ferrets for the purpose of promoting their welfare. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that includes the ability to prohibit or restrict such imports according to specified criteria. An appropriate national authority is defined in clause 3 as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) provides an indicative list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. Those include exemptions to prohibitions or restrictions, issuing permits and enforcement mechanisms.
Many Members have asked me about this next point. Ferrets are included in the scope of this regulation-making power to align with the scope of the non-commercial pet travel rules, which apply equally to dogs, cats and ferrets. Our pet travel rules apply to dogs, cats and ferrets because they are species that are susceptible to rabies and commonly kept as pets.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for inviting me to be on the Committee, for introducing the Bill and for mentioning ferrets. It is very important. In discussing the last iteration of this legislation, I put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar, and I would like to repeat that.
Dr Chambers
He is not—my condolences to the hon. Lady’s brother on the loss of Oscar, his much-loved ferret.
Crucially, subsections (3) and (4) state that the first regulations made under the regulation-making power in subsection (1) in relation to England, Scotland and Wales must include prohibitions on the three specific types of low-welfare imports. Governments in Great Britain must first use the power to raise the minimum age at which a dog or cat can be brought into Great Britain to six months, to prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant and to ban the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, such as cropped ears.
Johanna Baxter
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under subsection (4)(c), the reference to cats that have been mutilated includes cats that have been declawed?
Dr Chambers
Yes, I can confirm that. The declawing of cats is specifically included, but it covers any mutilation that is for cosmetic purposes only and not for the welfare of the animal.
The restrictions will be subject to appropriate exemptions, which I will touch on shortly. Despite the current rules specifying that a dog or cat cannot be brought into Great Britain under 15 weeks old, we still see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or sometimes even younger. Separating a puppy from its mother too young has implications for the puppy’s health and welfare. Evidence from stakeholders also suggests that puppies imported into Great Britain have frequently been subjected to unacceptable breeding practices abroad and transported in poor conditions.
Raising the minimum age at which a puppy or kitten can be brought into Great Britain to six months old will disrupt the low-welfare movement of under-age puppies into Great Britain. At six months old, both puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately, which will make it easier to enforce the new minimum age and to identify under-age dogs and cats. We hope that the measure will result in significantly fewer low-welfare breeding operations supplying the Great Britain market.
Currently, welfare and transport regulations prevent an animal from being transported during the final 10% of its gestation. That limit is insufficient to tackle the emerging practice of importing heavily pregnant dogs, and it is very difficult to identify the stage of pregnancy accurately.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing us the Bill. Does he agree that it is especially dangerous for cats in the last third of their gestation to travel when pregnant?
Dr Chambers
Yes, we know that late-stage travel during pregnancy is a risk factor for problems during the pregnancy and that it can lead to the cat giving birth early.
The potential for low welfare during travel greatly increases as the pregnancy of the female advances, and that risks the health and welfare of the offspring. We also anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. A ban on bringing heavily pregnant dogs and cats into Great Britain is therefore needed to mitigate that. The first set of regulations made under clause 1 will go further than the current requirements, so that dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant cannot be brought into Great Britain. At 42 days, there are much more reliable visual markers of pregnancy, meaning that the ban will be much easier to enforce.
It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation in Great Britain, and it has been since 2007. Despite that, demand continues for pets with mutilations such as dogs with cropped ears or docked tails and declawed cats. Those procedures are cruel and cause unnecessary pain. The definition of mutilation is set out in subsection (9):
“a dog or cat has been ‘mutilated’ if it has undergone a procedure which involves interference with its sensitive tissues or bone structure otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.”
For example, the amputation of the tail of an injured dog for medical reasons would still be permitted. Allowing people to bring animals into Great Britain that have suffered in this way only outsources such cruelty. Fundamentally, the ban would make the purchase or ownership of dogs and cats of non-exempted mutilations extremely difficult. It would also remove the smokescreen that enables ear cropping to continue to be done illegally in Great Britain with relative impunity.
Members will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial provisions. That is because very low numbers of ferrets are being brought into Great Britain, and unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in, or low-welfare movement of, ferrets at this time. Importantly, the regulation-making powers in clause 1 will allow for measures to protect ferrets’ welfare to be introduced in the future should that situation change. Those three measures are widely supported by stakeholders and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Together, they will help to disrupt low-welfare movements of pet animals into Great Britain for sale.
Delivering the measures via secondary legislation allows the Government the opportunity to gather further evidence and to discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. That crucial exercise will ensure that new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively with no unintended consequences and with appropriate exemptions. I understand that the Government have already started engaging with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club, to gather information and to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support appropriate exemptions. Any exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited. Importantly, as set out in subsection (5), the prohibitions would only be lifted in subsequent regulations following consultation with appropriate persons.
Subsections (6) and (7) will enable regulations to set out a process for non-compliant dogs, cats and ferrets that are seized or detained. That will allow for the costs of detention to be met and, if necessary, for animals to be rehomed. The powers will help enforcers to effectively tackle the low-welfare movements of dogs and cats that are routinely seen on entry into Great Britain, while maintaining our high standards of biosecurity. Subsection (8) will allow regulations to make provision for monetary penalties to be imposed, which will help to ensure that measures envisaged by the Bill can be enforced appropriately and act as a sufficient deterrent.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to speak to clause 3, but, if he wants to do so, now would be the time.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 3 outlines who can exercise the regulation-making powers in clause 1. For the purposes of those powers, clause 3(1) defines the “appropriate national authority” in respect of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That subsection confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland will have the power to make regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the movement of animals into Scotland or Wales for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of the Bill means that the reserved matter in paragraph 20 of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore clause 3(2) sets out that the consent of the Secretary of State may be necessary when DAERA proposes to make regulations under the powers in clause 1. To provide for effective collaboration, clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that extend and apply to Northern Ireland where DAERA gives its consent. Subsection (4) sets out that DAERA’s consent would not be needed in such circumstances as described by subsection (2).
Sarah Champion
I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.
My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.
The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.
Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.
I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.
The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:
“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.
That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.
Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.
I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK.
As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.
It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health.
Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk.
I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.
I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals.
As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak to clause 1 and the related amendments. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on bringing forward this important Bill, which is backed by huge expert and public support. It is great to see the Public Gallery so full. I must declare my allegiance to the cat community—although I am anxious about the ferret community not having quite the popularity. You will be pleased to know, Sir Jeremy, that I will not be naming my cats. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They have asked for anonymity—[Laughter.]
Frankly, action on a lot of the issues the Bill addresses is a long time coming, and much work on this subject has been done by previous hon. Members before the hon. Member for Winchester. This debate demonstrates the genuine cross-party support that exists on these issues. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s provisions, particularly clause 1, which will protect young animals with a six-month minimum age limit, end the importation of mutilated animals, and prevent the transport of heavily pregnant animals.
As Members have already outlined, the Bill will go a long way in enabling us to tackle the criminals who take advantage of policy loopholes. It is vital that we uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader in animal welfare by taking a firm stand against cruelty and exploitation. But the Bill—particularly clause 1—is about more than animal welfare, as it also extends to the protection of public health. As has been outlined, some smuggled animals could carry harmful diseases that can be transmitted to humans. I urge colleagues to support clause 1 and the rest of the Bill as it goes forward.
While I am on my feet, I hope you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy. It is an animal welfare Bill, so I would like to press the Minister for an update on when the animal welfare strategy will be published. We are desperately waiting for it, and many of the private Members’ Bills that are coming forward would be aligned with that strategy.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his Bill and for asking me to be on the Committee, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into legislation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
I am delighted that we are here to discuss this Bill. I was the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884. Now, vets in the Commons are a little bit like London buses: you wait 130 years and then another five years, and then another one comes along. I am delighted to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester. Vets in the House of Commons are now a bit of a danger: we are breeding like rabbits. At this rate, we would probably be able to fill a car by the end of the century. But under this new legislation there would be a maximum of five vets per car.
I strongly support the Bill and cannot say how pleased and relieved I am to be here today opposite my friend the Minister. We served together on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee and have now swapped places. I am delighted that this Bill is now getting over the line with cross-party support. Can I also offer a shout out? This legislation was started under the Conservative Government: the clauses were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and then the former Conservative Member of Parliament for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, had a private Member’s Bill identical to this one. I pay tribute to her. We are here today to push that work forward.
I, too, acknowledge the important work of the charitable sector and organisations in the animal space including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust—its former chief vet, Paula Boyden, spearheaded the campaign—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which the hon. Member for Winchester and I visited yesterday in the light of this Bill, the RSPCA, FOUR PAWS and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Marc Abraham, a fellow veterinary surgeon, has also done a lot of work on this issue.
In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, did a number of inquiries on this issue, one of which was on the movement of animals across borders, and we looked at a lot of the situations that are highlighted in these clauses. Our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse highlighted some of the issues that clauses 1, 2 and 3 set out and made important points about biosecurity. I welcome the measures in the clauses to increase the minimum age to six months, which will be important for the health and welfare of these animals.
I note—the Minister is well aware of these issues because we have been discussing them for many years—that some measures are not included in the Bill, and I hope that he will keep them under review and consider introducing future secondary legislation. They include the institution of pre-importation health checks for animals, the reinstatement of rabies titre checks, and an increase of the wait time after a rabies vaccination to 12 weeks. That would help to enforce the change to a minimum age of entry of six months.
I very much welcome the commitments in the clauses on the stage of gestation for cats and dogs coming into this country. The EFRA Committee heard harrowing evidence about heavily pregnant animals that are smuggled in, give birth and are then smuggled out, often with fresh suture wounds from caesarean sections. They are just shipped in and out, so hopefully the Bill will close that loophole. The requirement for import not to take place in the last third of gestation is very important. It is currently banned in the last 10% of gestation, but it is very difficult to judge the stage of gestation, so that is an important change.
We have talked about mutilations. The Bill will tighten the requirements and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, bring down the smokescreen. People are importing dogs that have been horrifically mutilated.
Aphra Brandreth
Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?
Dr Hudson
I very much agree. Ear cropping has been normalised in popular culture, but a recent survey by Battersea found that 50% of respondents had no idea that it is illegal. The fact that it is normalised in the media and popular culture means that people, sometimes unwittingly, try to source one of those animals.
Ear cropping is an absolutely horrific procedure, and it is increasingly prevalent. There is absolutely no clinical indication to crop a dog’s ears—it is just a barbaric practice. The EFRA Committee has taken evidence on it, and it is suspected that it is unfortunately taking place in the United Kingdom illegally, potentially with online dog cropping kits, which are still available, and without analgesia. If a veterinary surgeon were to perform that procedure in the United Kingdom, they would be struck off and would not be allowed to be a veterinary surgeon, but unfortunately it still goes on.
One of my favourite films, which I have watched many times with my family, is the Disney Pixar film “Up”. It is a wonderful and very moving film, but some of the dogs in it have had their ears cropped. If families see these films, it normalises the practice: people say, “That’s a lovely dog. I’d like a dog that looks like that.” As recently as a couple of years ago, the lead character in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” had cropped ears.
As recently as this year, the “best in show” winner of the Westminster dog show in the United States was Monty, a giant schnauzer with his ears cropped. The show was reported on the BBC website with a picture of the winning dog, but with no disclaimer explaining that the procedure is illegal in the UK. Anyone looking at the website would have thought, “What a wonderful dog—he’s won the prize!” It needs to be pointed out.
Conservative MPs have written an open letter to film studios and media outlets, calling on them to be responsible in their portrayal of dogs in the media. When studios make films with dogs, they should not have them cropped—it is very simple. When the media publish reports on such dogs, they should include a health warning.
Sadly, it is still possible in this country to buy ear cropping kits online. We are calling on the Government to close that loophole and put pressure on online advertisers so that we can stamp out that practice. I am delighted that the Bill will help to address that, because we have to stop the importation of cropped dogs, stop normalising them in popular culture and stop making cropping possible in this country.
As the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for Rotherham mentioned, it is also very important that the legislation should cover the declawing of cats, an issue that Cats Protection has highlighted. It is a horrific procedure, with no clinical indication for cats whatever. Amputating at the level of the fingernails means that cats are no longer able to express themselves, use scratching posts or climb trees. People are sourcing declawed cats so that they can protect their furniture. That needs to stop.
The recommendations that have been made about stages of gestation and about age will help to address issues with biosecurity and specifically with rabies. The importation of dogs carries zoonotic risks, including risks of rabies and brucellosis, so it is important to keep that under review. Many dogs that are rehomed from eastern Europe have brought diseases in with them. People bring them in unwittingly, thinking that they are helping, but actually it is putting dogs and people in this country at risk. I urge the Minister to consider secondary legislation to add pre-importation health screening.
As we debated when considering the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we should potentially reinstate the tick and tapeworm treatments that stopped in the EU in 2012. A few years ago, in Harlow, Essex, there was a case of babesiosis in a dog that had never left the country. Another dog must have come in and dropped a tick that the Essex dog then picked up, leading it to contract the disease.
It is important to be cognisant of animal and human health. The hon. Member for Winchester is a huge advocate of the concept of “one health” for animals and humans. We give a lot of affection to the pets we love and nurture; they give us a lot in return, and it helps our physical and mental health.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me push the Government to ensure that Bills like this one protect our biosecurity. In this context we are talking about a small animal setting, but the Animal and Plant Health Agency is pivotal in protecting not only against canine brucellosis, rabies and babesiosis, but against diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I did at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on Thursday, I will push the Government to make sure that they rapidly redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition stand firmly—125%—behind the Bill. We wish it well.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for promoting this private Member’s Bill; as we have heard from a range of hon. Members this morning, it is an extremely important Bill for animal welfare and the safe movement of our beloved pets. I also thank him for the amendments that he has tabled, which I assure him the Government support.
I echo the witty comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, at the beginning. We have been through a long journey on this issue, and I am delighted that Parliament is at a stage where we can deliver it. The Bill will be welcome. I well remember the discussion of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and Selaine Saxby’s efforts, to which I pay tribute.
Dr Chambers
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is timely and essential. I thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the Committee this morning. I also thank my whole team from Winchester—
The Chair
Order. I should have been clearer: I meant that the hon. Gentleman should sum up the debate on the first group in relation to clauses 1 to 3 and the amendments that he has proposed. He will have a chance to make general valedictory statements later.
Dr Chambers
Okay; I will thank my team from Winchester again later. Shall I go on to clause 4?
The Chair
We need to first put the questions related to the first group. Before I do that, I will give a friendly warning. Clause 1 is fairly broad in scope, so I have allowed the debate to be fairly broad. Subsequent clauses are much narrower, so the debate will have to be narrower.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Regulations under section 1: supplementary
Amendments made: 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert “(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Disapplication of non-commercial rules in certain cases
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
“(b) in point (b), after ‘non-commercial movement’ (in the first place it occurs) insert ‘(including movement that would be non-commercial movement but for Article 5 or 5A)’.”
This amendment makes a minor clarificatory change in consequence of the other amendments made by Clause 4.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
Dr Chambers
Clause 4 will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules to make it harder for those rules to be exploited for commercial gain. The clause contains the second set of substantive measures in the Bill to tackle puppy smuggling. The measures are designed to make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to disguise commercial imports as genuine pet movements.
Our non-commercial pet travel rules are intended to make it easier for the genuine pet owner to travel with their dog, cat or ferret. We know, however, that some unscrupulous commercial importers abuse the existing rules to bring in pets for sale. Those individuals seek to maximise their profits, often at the expense of the welfare of the animals they are importing. By its very nature, the true extent of pet smuggling operations cannot be known; it is likely that APHA figures only capture a small proportion of the animals being smuggled into the country.
A key loophole in our current rules is that up to five pets per person can travel in a single non-commercial movement. Consequently, unscrupulous traders can claim ownership of up to five puppies each, enabling them to cram vans with tens of dogs for transportation into Great Britain in a single trip.
By bringing animals in under the non-commercial rules, these traders avoid the more onerous requirements of the commercial import regime, which include the clinical examination by vets of animals before transport and enhanced traceability requirements. These requirements protect both animal welfare and our high biosecurity standards.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank the hon. Member for the proposals in this Bill on behalf of my constituents in North Somerset and on behalf of Cats Protection, which has sent me numerous emails about this clause regulating the number of animals allowed in a vehicle. I think he will agree that these vital changes need to be made, to ensure that we end the horrible atrocity of the smuggling of puppies, cats and ferrets.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I spent many happy years living in his North Somerset constituency while I was teaching at Bristol Veterinary School at the University of Bristol. He must be very proud that there is such an institution, which does so much to improve animal welfare, in his constituency.
To close this loophole, subsection (4) of clause 4 reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain from a third country in a single non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, including vehicles on board a train or a ferry, and to three per person for foot or air passengers. This represents a significant reduction in the number of pets that can travel in a single, non-commercial movement. It is, however, a proportionate intervention that balances the need to disrupt illegal trade while minimising the impact on genuine pet owners.
The new caps are high enough to ensure that family and friends travelling together with their pets have enough flexibility to transport their pets non-commercially when they have genuine and legitimate needs to do so. They are also high enough to ensure that individuals are able to travel with assistance dogs and still have enough space to travel with any additional pets. The new limits in clause 4 also align with industry practice. Eurotunnel, which sees the greatest volume of pet movements, has capped the number of animals moving non-commercially on its service to five per vehicle.
Importantly, these restrictions would not preclude the movement of larger consignments of animals. A person who wishes to move more than five pets per vehicle or three per person for air or foot passenger travel would still be able to do so under the commercial import regime.
Currently, the pet travel rules also allow the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret into Great Britain within five days by a person authorised by the owner to carry out the movement on their behalf. Unfortunately, there is evidence from APHA and anecdotal evidence from stakeholders that this rule is also being exploited. Some individuals are known to pose as authorised persons to move animals under the non-commercial rules, when they are actually bringing them into Great Britain for sale. These pets should be moved under the commercial import regime, subject to more stringent requirements.
To prevent the misuse of these rules, clause 4(5) amends the existing pet travel rules to directly link the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret with its owner, in order to ensure that a pet can only be moved by an authorised person if it is within five days of the owner’s completing the same journey. Subsection (6) also makes amendments to the non-commercial pet travel regulations to ensure that only an owner, and not an authorised person, is permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog, cat or ferret is non-commercial.
Amendments 5 and 8 together, with consequential amendments 4, 6 and 7—provide the appropriate authority with powers enabling it to grant exemptions in certain circumstances from the requirements affecting non-commercial movements of pet animals in new articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for inviting me to join him on this Committee. Our much-loved cockapoo, Todd, came to us as a result of rehoming from a family in the UK who had underestimated the needs of such a lively young dog. I align myself with my hon. Friend’s comments about the mental health benefits of pets, particularly as we are in Mental Health Awareness Week.
Todd has certainly improved our lives, especially by acting as an informal therapy and support dog for our son George. However, importing puppies too early or without their mothers can cause stress to the animals, which can lead to behavioural issues and, later, their abandonment by people who are completely unprepared for the attention, investment and care needed by their pets. I therefore welcome the clauses that will limit the number of animals being moved internationally, but I am concerned that amendment 5 to clause 4 could open up risks under the non-commercial rules relating to the numbers of animals, as well as the exceptions and exemptions that are available.
Many friends of mine have changed the lives of rescue dogs from Eastern Europe, including Cassie and Merlin, but research by RSPCA suggests that some—not them, I stress—are unknowingly imported commercially under the guise of pet rescue. I ask the Minister what additional and specific measures can be taken to support those who seek to give new homes to dogs from abroad and ensure that the exemptions are tightly regulated. I also want to thank the Government for supporting the Bill and ask for clarification on the progress made on their commitments in the Labour manifesto. Specifically, I would like to ask for an update on the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is so important to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is doing, and on tackling of horse, pony and donkey smuggling in the animal strategy.
The Chair
I know the Minister will recognise that the latter list of animals is not covered by the Bill. However, out of the generosity of his heart, he may want to give a short answer on that. I come to the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Hudson
The measures in clauses 4 and 5 on the delineation between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals are important. The Opposition very much welcome the provision in clause 4 reducing the number of animals to five per vehicle or three per person. I know that many campaigners, including the Dogs Trust and various charities, wanted that figure to be three per vehicle, based on the surveys that they had done. However, if we think about what has happened with unscrupulous traders picking up foot passengers who potentially have four or five animals with them, five per vehicle in this legislation is a darned sight better than potentially 20 per vehicle. I urge the Minister to keep the limit under review; if there is evidence that anything is being exploited, I am sure that reducing the five down to three would be very much welcome across the sector.
A key point that I want to stress in clause 4 is the difference between commercial and non-commercial transportation. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and animal charities have found that people have been flipping between commercial and non-commercial transportation of animals to get away from the authorities. I urge the Government to keep a watching brief on that issue. If there is evidence that people, because of this legislation, are flipping between the two, the Government must stamp down on what would be an alarming development.
Finally, I briefly turn to amendment 5 to clause 4. I very much understand the methodology and the reasons for tabling it, but the Government, who are supporting and drafting this amendment, need to clarify what is meant by “exceptional or compelling circumstances”. We have heard some examples, but some in the sector, such as the RSPCA, have expressed some reservations that amendment 5, while well intended, might unfortunately create a loophole.
In his summing up, can the Minister give clarity that the Government will keep a watching brief on that issue and be very clear about who we mean by “exceptional and compelling circumstances”? As with any legislation, unintended consequences and loopholes can develop, and we know that in the animal smuggling sector bad people, who are doing bad things to animals, exploit loopholes. I urge the hon. Member for Winchester and the Government to clarify that amendment 5 will be okay.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for all the contributions on this very important part of the Bill, and I will try to address briefly some of the points that have been made. On bringing the numbers down from five per person to a maximum of five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger, I hear the points made by both the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
The Government strongly support the reduction, but a limit of five pets per vehicle gives flexibility for individuals travelling with assistance dogs alongside their other pets, as well as family and friends travelling together, as the hon. Member for Winchester explained in his introductory comments, while also significantly reducing the risk that non-commercial pet travel rules will be abused. Clearly, we will always monitor the way in which this works and act accordingly. The limit of five pets per vehicle and three per air or foot passenger was recommended by the EFRA Committee back in April 2024.
In passing, I will also reference the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We are well aware of the need to update it, and it will be in the programme in future—it is a question of finding legislative time, but we are very keen to proceed. The Government also strongly support the Bill’s introduction of a requirement for pets and their owners to travel within five days of each other—that is really important. It will link a pet’s movement to their owner’s, closing a loophole that we know is exploited by unscrupulous traders.
As explained by the hon. Member for Winchester, amendment 14 is a clarificatory change to make it clear that the existing definition of pet animal is not affected by the measures in the Bill; some of these finer points are really quite important to ensure that we do not introduce unintended consequences. The amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by clarifying that the Bill is not changing the definition of pet animal, to avoid any unintended consequences that may impact the operation of the pet travel regime. I urge Members to support that amendment.
Turning now to amendments 4 to 8, we all recognise the importance of the measures in clause 4 to prevent abuse of the pet travel rules and to close existing loopholes. However, to address the point raised by the shadow Minister, sometimes exceptional circumstances arise where strict adherence to those rules may be impractical or negatively impact individuals, such as those—but not only those—with protected characteristics. In our view, an intentional and tightly controlled exemption is entirely appropriate, but I give an absolute assurance that it will be in very limited circumstances. The Government will be able to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that groups such as those with protected characteristics are not adversely impacted, but there has to be sufficient justification for an exemption.
The purpose of the amendments is to give us flexibility and to allow the objective of introducing tighter restrictions on pet travel to be balanced with the need to ensure that genuine pet owners are not penalised in emergency situations, and that those with protected characteristics can, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, travel together. We are trying to get the balance right, and obviously we will see how it plays out in practice. I genuinely believe that the exemption upholds our commitment to ending puppy smuggling while offering flexibility, providing that individuals can demonstrate that their movements are genuinely non-commercial. The exemption would not create any blanket exceptions from the rules, and its application would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
My officials will be working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop clear operational guidance outlining exactly what circumstances might justify an exemption and what evidence would be necessary. That will be communicated to the public ahead of the measure coming into force. For those reasons, I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Consequential provision
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 6, page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power to make provision in regulations that is consequential on clause 4 or 5.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7 stand part.
Motion to transfer subsection 7(1).
Motion to transfer clause 7.
Clause 8 stand part.
Dr Chambers
I have speaking notes for clauses 7 and 8, but I feel that they are very technical and probably do not add much to the debate. Unless Members particularly want me to read out those notes, I am happy to move on without discussing them.
The Chair
That is entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He does not have to read them out if he does not wish to.
Dr Hudson
I rise to support clause 6 and the subsequent clauses within the Bill. I will be very brief; I just want to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest standard of animal welfare in the world, and with legislation like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare, as we have seen today, unites us in humanity across the House, and it is so important that we support such legislation.
I thank everyone involved with this Bill: the DEFRA team, the Clerks, Hansard, the Bill Committee, the Doorkeepers, and the public for coming, watching and engaging with this process. I thank my friend and veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester, for introducing this important legislation. I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament, as a shadow Minister, as a co-sponsor of the Bill and as a veterinary surgeon. It has my full support.
Daniel Zeichner
I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Regulations
Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—(Dr Chambers.)
Ordered,
That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5.—(Dr Chambers.)
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement.
There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day.
We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself.
On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.
Dr Hudson
I am grateful that the hon. Member has brought up the issue of brachycephalic animals. Again, it highlights the situation in popular culture and the fact that we need to educate people and try to stop advertising companies using these flat-faced animals as part of their “cute” advertising campaigns. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a question of educating the public, but also we need to inform the debate around popular culture for these animals?
The Chair
Order. I point out, before the hon. Member for Winchester responds, that we seem to be moving on to his next private Member’s Bill, so let us deal with this one first.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and as someone who helped to draw up the British Veterinary Association advertising policies for use of animals in adverts, I certainly urge all companies to read that before they produce adverts.
In relation to this Bill specifically—the hon. Member has touched on this already—we are mindful that we will need to review with the Government how effective our biosecurity is. This legislation should help hugely in lowering the risk of rabies, Brucella canis and other diseases that can affect humans, but other steps may need to be taken, perhaps through other Departments or other legislation, to ensure that we have rigorous public health safety when we have a large number of animals moving between countries. We also need to ensure that people are not inadvertently affected by this measure. Many organisations and individual constituents have contacted me with concerns, and we will have to keep an eye on how we can improve things for individuals with secondary legislation.
I thank everyone who has worked on this measure for many years, in whatever capacity and both outside and inside Parliament. I am fully aware that it was part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill initially. It was then brought forward by the former Member for North Devon in the last Parliament and with a lot of help from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I am so proud to have finally got it over the line, but I am also very mindful that it was not me on my own. This has been a huge discussion for many years by a lot of people, on a cross-party basis, and I am very thankful for all the work that has been put in, so thank you.
The Chair
I add my thanks to the hon. Gentleman and all other members of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Friday 4th July 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberAnimal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted to present this Bill for its Third Reading. I begin by stating how grateful I am to all the Members from across the House who have engaged with this Bill, especially during the Public Bill Committee. It became quite clear very quickly how passionate every Committee member was about animal welfare, and we had a huge amount of contributions, with many taking the opportunity to name check their own pets from home. I thought I had heard every cat name during my years in clinical practice, but I have to say that I was really impressed by the imagination of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who revealed that her cats were named Clement Catlee and Mo Meowlam.
My many years in veterinary practice, working both in Winchester and in Romsey—in your beautiful constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—as well as around the rest of country, have shown me just how deeply the people of this nation care for their pets. They are companions, and they are sometimes sole companions to people who live alone. I have lost count of the number of times, especially during covid, that we were treating animals and someone would say, “I haven’t seen anyone else for months, and my dog or my cat is my only companion.” Pets are absolutely vital for many people’s mental health, especially when we have an epidemic of loneliness. Pets are sometimes part of the antidote to that.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituency is the home of Canine Partners, the organisation that provides canine companions for individuals with disabilities. I just wanted to reflect on the positive effect those dogs have on the people who care for them.
Dr Chambers
There are so many fantastic organisations like Canine Partners. Another one is the Cinnamon Trust. If a person ends up going into hospital for an extended period of time, the Cinnamon Trust will take care of their pet for them and give it back to them when they are discharged. That takes away so much of the worry.
My partner Emma and I have two dogs: Frank and Moose. Frank has been mentioned before in Parliament, because I managed to wish him a very happy 15th birthday recently. He is a pug cross border terrier. I think the best way to describe how he looks, with his undershot jaw and his big buggy eyes, is quirky. I admit that he gets a mixed reception; one Liberal Democrat Member saw a picture of him and called him ugly, which I was horrendously offended by. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] It was awful—shame! We were at one of my friends’ houses for dinner recently, and one of their children looked at Frank and said, “Frank is really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that, because he might have been in an accident.” It was possibly a genetic accident, but I want to make clear on the record that beneath his appearance, he is a gentle and loving companion, and he brings a smile to the face of everyone who sees him.
I know that many other Members, as well as people across the country, will feel as strongly about protecting animal welfare as I and other vets do. Pets like Frank and Moose have such profound impacts on our everyday lives and happiness, and it is crucial that we do all we can to ensure dogs like them are protected from the cruel practices involved in pet smuggling. All of the pets who have been mentioned in this Chamber, and others who have not been, are close to our hearts and serve to remind us of the importance of this Bill. Although my pets and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—Alfie and—
Dr Chambers
Alfie and Luna. They are cockapoos —I am sure they keep you very fit. Although our pets, and all the pets of the other hon. Members who are in the Chamber today, are well cared for and have loving homes, that is not the case for all cats and dogs in the UK.
As a vet, I have seen the devastating consequences of puppy smuggling. It is unimaginably cruel to separate puppies and kittens from their mothers at a very young age and then bring them across borders in substandard conditions, where they are sold for maximum profit by unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this Bill, which I know means a lot to the great number of my constituents who have contacted me. They are particularly concerned about the conditions that puppies are smuggled in, but also that many animals coming into this country illegally bring conditions that we have eradicated here, or have cropped ears and tails. They are very keen to see my hon. Friend’s Bill pass, but can he assure us that more can be done in future to make sure, in particular, that we stamp out those illnesses?
Dr Chambers
I very much appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend. Yes, one important part of this Bill—which I will come on to—is biosecurity. There are a lot of diseases that we do not see in the UK that can affect humans as well, such as rabies and Brucella canis. There are also diseases such as distemper that affect other dogs; we do not see those diseases in the UK, but there is a risk of them coming in and becoming endemic. My partner Emma, who is here today, is an epidemiologist at the University of Surrey, studying diseases such as rabies in dogs and the risk of them transferring across borders. It is a very live issue.
Those who purchase an animal are often completely unaware of the smuggling process, which is devastating. When people go to buy a puppy, they are completely unaware that there is a reasonable chance that it has been smuggled in from abroad.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend is laying out clearly the need for change. A number of my constituents, including Ann from Bredbury, Shannon from Marple and Ashley from High Lane, have been in touch to ask me to support him in his endeavours. People are staggered that some of these practices are not yet outlawed. Does he agree that some of his proposals in the Bill are closing loopholes that people already expect to be closed?
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.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for introducing this important Bill, which I support. He talks about the impact of diseases that puppies might have when they are brought in. Does he agree that there are also diseases that have potential impacts on human health, often for the veterinary surgeons or nurses who are looking after them? For example, diseases such as Brucella canis could lead to miscarriage for a lady if she is looking after one of those puppies while pregnant.
Dr Chambers
I know that the hon. Lady speaks with authority as her husband is a vet. I thank her for sitting on the Committee and for pushing the Bill through. She also has a private Member’s Bill on animal welfare. She makes an important point that has been consuming the veterinary profession for the last couple of years. A lot of dogs brought in from abroad have a disease called Brucella canis, which can affect humans. It can cause infertility and miscarriages. Obviously, if a dog has been illegally smuggled in, owners might not be aware of the risk because they assume it has been born in the UK. It is a huge human health risk as well.
Just last night, I was still receiving messages from veterinary colleagues about treating animals that they strongly suspect have been smuggled in because of the type of illnesses that they are seeing. That is why we are striving to end those practices by delivering the measures in the Bill.
The Bill closes loopholes in our pet travel rules that are currently exploited. It does so by reducing the number of animals permitted per non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle—including vehicles on board a train or ferry—and to three per person for foot or air passengers. Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising the impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial.
Crucially, the Bill places a duty on the Government to use these regulation-making powers to deliver three key measures: a ban on the import of puppies and kittens under six months old; a ban on the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant; and a ban on the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated. Raising the minimum age at which dogs and cats can be imported will ensure that very young animals are not taken from their mothers too soon. Separating a puppy or kitten from its mother too young has huge implications for its health and welfare.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this very important Bill. The point about very young animals is really pertinent. In my family, we have two kittens. They were brought into our house at an appropriate age, and we can see the importance of their first relationships after birth.
One of my constituents owns ferrets, and I met both those ferrets at civic events in my constituency of Watford. They clearly have personalities, and it is really important that this Bill seeks to protect them.
Dr Chambers
Yes, ferrets are some of the most quirky and engaging creatures you can ever meet—great personalities. I have to say I hate them coming into the consult room, because you can smell that they have been there for several hours afterwards, but they bring a lot of joy and pleasure to the people who own them.
We anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. The evidence from stakeholders suggests that even at present, traders are importing very heavily pregnant dogs and cats in order to benefit from their trade as soon as the puppies and kittens are born, because it is much cheaper and easier to bring in an animal before it gives birth than to try to move a whole load of puppies. We know that some dogs are being taken back and forth; they get pregnant again, and then are brought back to give birth. It really is abuse of these bitches. They are basically puppy factories.
The transportation of heavily pregnant dogs and cats is dangerous to the health and welfare of both the mother and the offspring, especially in heatwaves, given the heat inside vans when they have a few pregnant dogs in the back, so it is paramount that we remain on the front foot and use the Bill to prevent this practice becoming commonplace.
The Bill will raise the minimum age at which cats and dogs can be imported to ensure that very young animals are not taken from their mothers too soon, and that we can age puppies and kittens more accurately. Currently, the minimum age is technically 15 weeks, but it is very hard even for vets to accurately age animals. By the time they get to six months old, they have lost all their deciduous teeth—their baby teeth—and have mostly adult teeth, so we can be much more confident about their age. Raising the minimum age will be much better for their welfare, but it will also help tackle the criminals’ business model, because the demand is for puppies, not dogs that are over six months. We hope that if people cannot bring in dogs at six months old, it will take away the incentive to try to get them across the border.
I come to mutilation, which includes ear cropping, the declawing of cats and tail docking. It is very cruel and should not be tolerated. For anyone who is not aware, ear cropping is when someone cuts a dog’s ears off to make it look more aggressive. It often happens to breeds such as XL bullies and Dobermanns. It has been illegal in the UK for more than a decade—since, I think, 2013. People are still performing the procedure in the UK, without veterinary supervision and probably with no anaesthetic, and then claiming that the dogs have been brought in from abroad, because it is still legal to bring them in from abroad.
I received messages last night from about a dozen vets, saying that just in the last couple of months, they have treated dogs that have clearly had their ears hacked off in the UK, and that now have infections and need the rest of the ear amputated. This is going on now. The great thing about closing that loophole is that there will be no excuse for owning a dog in the UK with cropped ears, and no one will be able to claim that such a dog has been brought in from abroad.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
One of the great beauties of this Bill is that it applies to Scotland, too. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will make the prosecution of ear cropping-related cases easier in Scotland, for the benefit of our wonderful dogs?
Dr Chambers
Clarity about the fact that there is no excuse for having a dog with cropped ears should make prosecution and enforcement of the law a lot more straightforward.
I will read out a message that I received from a veterinary colleague last night:
“Just saw for repeat meds check this week, 3yo cropped Doberman, imported but clearly was very young and Owner was not given any passport or papers. He had his ears cropped (supposedly done abroad before being imported, but was probably done in the UK). Lovely bright dog until anyone puts a hand towards his head when it will explode with aggression. Big enough dog to be life threatening if a child approached him. Now exists near permanently muzzled and dosed up on Prozac. It’s maddening, frustrating and pitiful all at the same time.”
Cutting a dog’s ears off with no anaesthetic is obviously physically harmful, but it can also affect the dog’s psychology for the rest of their life, so they will not let anyone go near their head. It is quite interesting; we know that dogs love to be stroked, particularly on their heads, and studies show that both a human’s and a dog’s cortisol levels go down when a human pets a dog. The relationship is mutual and symbiotic. Depriving an animal of that type of relationship for the rest of its life is really upsetting. What is the point in owning a dog if you cannot even stroke it? It is a real shame. There is no reason to mutilate an animal in this way. It is a cruel practice, only carried out for aesthetic reasons, and the Bill will help us to close that loophole for good.
The Bill was amended in Committee to allow the appropriate authority to exempt pet owners from the new requirements in articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation in exceptional and compelling circumstances. This aims to ensure that the new measures will not disadvantage protected groups such as assistance dog users. It will also provide flexibility in emergency situations, such as cases where genuine owners can no longer travel within five days of their pets, for example because they have a medical emergency. I know that has caused some concern, and I reassure hon. Members that it is intended for use in limited circumstances, which must be exceptional or compelling. Exemptions sought will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the Government have provided reassurances that no blanket exemptions will be granted.
Finally, in Committee the Bill was amended to remove the power that would have enabled the Secretary of State to make consequential changes that might have been required as a result of changes that the Bill makes to the pet travel rules and corresponding commercial import rules. Further consideration of the legislation has taken place since the Bill was introduced, and we have greater confidence that no further consequential amendments will be required. Should further changes to the pet travel schemes legal framework be needed, the Government may be able to make them using existing powers in other legislation.
The Bill will play a pivotal role in disrupting the cruel pet smuggling trade, a shared objective of Members from across the House. It has been a joy to see the House united on animal welfare, and to see the commitment to working together across parties to end puppy smuggling. I urge all Members to support these crucial measures.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for bringing forward the Bill, and for all his work to get it to this stage. We should also thank the former hon. Member for North Devon, who I understand brought forward the Bill in the previous Parliament; it did not quite get through Parliament before the general election. It is good to see proposed legislation moving from one Parliament to the next and having cross-party support.
The hon. Gentleman represents Winchester. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I share a relationship, as I am a Romsonian and you represent my parents, but one of my first jobs was in Winchester, in the Esso garage by Peter Symonds college, so I know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency very well. That was the job that got me through university, and earned me money in the summer holidays. One of my proudest achievements was being given the opportunity to step up and take on the night shift, which was double pay. For a student, that was very exciting. Unfortunately, I lost that job because I fell asleep on my shift and someone stole the carwash while I was asleep. Yes. I was demoted back to daytime shifts, but Winchester always has a place in my heart.
John Grady
It is a great relief to know that two Members of this House sabotaged their petrochemical careers quite early on. I had a job in a garage as an 18-year-old—I cannot remember the brand. I made the fatal mistake of filling up a car salesman’s brand new car with diesel, when it was an unleaded car. That is why I never rose to the top of British Petroleum.
Mike Reader
I should state for the record, and for colleagues in Hansard, that I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), as was suggested earlier this week. For those online, I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), either, whom I was quoted as being this week. Nor am I a member of a much worse version of One Direction. That idea went viral this week, thanks to one of my former Labour colleagues, who temporarily made me Twitter famous.
I am a very passionate member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society, and I would like to thank the society for all its hard work during the election period on this campaign. When we put out social media posts and spoke to residents right across the political spectrum, it was very clear that there is real support for changes and much tougher animal welfare measures. The Conservatives, when in government, failed to take action on e-collars; on banning imports from trophy hunting, fur and foie gras; on banning snares and other inhumane devices that are already banned in Wales and Scotland; and—this is really critical for every pet owner—on the theft of pets. It is really positive to see these measures now coming forward.
Matt Turmaine
On my hon. Friend’s point about social media, does he have a view on the importance of having a dog in your social media during a general election campaign? It seemed to be an almost compulsory element of many of the campaigns I was involved in, including mine. Surely the Bill is critical to ensuring the good nature of the animals appearing in those social media posts?
Mike Reader
I completely agree. I was a candidate for 17 months, and for a long while I ran #DoorstepDogs; every week, I took a photo of my favourite dog that I met on the doorstep. Unfortunately, I have given up on that. Maybe I should bring it back.
Dr Chambers
That is a very good point about social media. One reason why there is such an interest in dogs with cropped ears is that a lot of influencers on Instagram and other social media platforms pose with dogs, or show that they have new dogs, with cropped ears. Many people are not aware that it is a mutilation; they think it is how dogs’ ears normally look. That drives a demand for dogs that look like that. We will be running a “stop the crop” campaign to try to get influencers and companies that use crop-eared dogs in adverts to stop doing that, so that cropping is not normalised among the general public. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
Mike Reader
It is fantastic to hear about that campaign, and I would fully support it. But there are also positives in the world of pets on social media. I follow an account, Southend Dog Training, which has helped me with free advice to ensure that Dash, my little Chorkie—full name: Dash Potato Evans-Reader—sits, walks and does not lick so many people every time we meet them. He does not come out with me on the doorstep, because while I am trying to talk about serious policy issues, he is more keen to get in the house and explore.
In all seriousness, the Bill is really important. It closes loopholes and stops the shameless exploitation of dogs, cats and ferrets—as I learned from the Clerk as I walked in, ferrets are included in the Bill because of their alignment on rabies categorisation. It is fantastic to see a really well-rounded Bill of this nature. It will stop puppies being stripped from their parents and smuggled into the UK under the age of six months, and it will stop heavily mutated dogs being brought in, as well as heavily pregnant dogs, who just become puppy farms.
I was at a food conference in Northampton yesterday, and when I told people there that I was coming in to Parliament today to talk about puppies, they thought it was a little strange. But I explained the loopholes, and they were not fully aware of what goes on. It is really important that we take this kind of action to close those loopholes.
Christine Jardine
First, I must confess that I am feeling increasingly guilty for not having mentioned my cockapoo, Brora, since everybody else is mentioning their pet. She has been a social media star—she posed in a Scotland football strip just before the last championship.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about people not being aware and needing reassurance. When we bought Brora five years ago, I remember it being on my mind that we had to be careful, because there are a lot of people selling puppies on the internet, apparently genuinely. I have heard from constituents who bought a puppy, unaware of the puppy trade, and then faced the sorts of issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) mentioned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the public take away from this Bill an awareness of those dangers?
Mike Reader
I could not agree more. It is critical that we do more in Parliament to raise these issues. I also welcome some of the minor amendments made in Committee, which strengthen the Bill further and will reassure people, particularly in the limited circumstances in which the Bill may have unintended consequences.
It is the story of my life that I am a dog lover and an animal lover. Every time I come home from Parliament, Dash is there waiting for me. Very fortunately, he comes with me when I come down to London, and he comes with me back to Northampton. It makes my life so much better, as you say, to come home, decompress—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman is doing a marvellous job, but he has used “you” a number of times, as indeed have other Members in their interventions. While I am on the subject of interventions, it is fascinating for me personally to hear about the social media accounts of everybody’s dogs, but could we please try to keep interventions within scope of the Bill?
Mike Reader
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you make a good point.
As I was saying, when I come home and see Dash, it is a great opportunity to decompress. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that that is such a valuable part of owning a dog.
In closing, I want to thank a number of organisations that have helped me and others to really understand this issue—Four Paws, Battersea and the Countryside Alliance have provided great briefings and have helped me and others to understand it. Today is a victory for common sense and animal welfare. One way or another, we will make sure that we improve animal welfare rights in this place.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this important Bill. It is an absolute honour and a privilege to speak on this subject. I have spoken on animal welfare in two Westminster Hall debates in the past month, and it is an important topic to speak about on the anniversary of my election, so I am grateful for the opportunity.
I am also an animal lover. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members present are extremely well informed, so the facts and information I will share is not for their benefit. I want to use this opportunity to provide some education for communities across our country and to share the message further afield, beyond this place.
As Mahatma Gandhi said:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
We often say we are a nation of animal lovers, and today is a test: if we legislate, we must legislate like one. Cruel practices like smuggling pregnant animals or separating young animals from their mothers at an early age violates all levels of mercy. These acts cause unnecessary suffering and must be stopped.
Having researched and had information provided by my team, I found the scale of the issue staggering. Between 2015 and 2019, dog imports under the pet travel scheme rose by 86%. Many of those were illegal or misclassified commercial imports. A single journey from Romania to the UK is over 1,500 miles. Puppies as young as 13 weeks are transported in cramped, filthy vans, We have heard about cropped ears, a cruel thing to do to any animal. More than 21,000 dogs with cropped ears are now estimated to be in the UK population—a result of the legal grey area that we hope the Bill will address.
I pay tribute and express my gratitude, I am sure on behalf of the House, to the many charities and organisations that look after animal welfare and ensure issues are brought to the attention of this place, and that are on the ground helping: Battersea, Dogs Trust, Countryside Alliance and many more that are local, regional, national and international.
It is important to share some of the key issues around biosecurity and health risks. Many smuggled puppies and kittens arrive in the UK without the core vaccinations required to prevent rabies, distemper, parvovirus and other life threatening illnesses. These animals are often too young to have received their vaccinations or to have developed any immunity. That is dangerous for them and also poses a serious public health risk to our communities and domestic pet population. The current system allows these animals to enter the country with minimal scrutiny, creating a perfect entry point for zoonotic diseases—those that can jump from animals to humans.
I will share two or three case studies from Battersea. Milo, a six-month-old dog rescued by Battersea, had been brutally mutilated. His ears were hacked and crudely stitched shut with cotton thread, which had been left to fester. That was not just illegal; it was deliberate torture masquerading as aesthetic enhancement. We need to tackle the glorification of mutilated animals on social media or any other platforms that do not make it clear to the people viewing that it is not the natural state of the animal—it has been mutilated. That is an important point that I hope, through this debate, will become more well known.
To give some more examples, Sunny, Ray and Sky, three Cane Corso puppies, were trafficked over 1,500 miles from Romania. They were just 13 weeks old—under the legal import age—and unvaccinated, mutilated and forced into cramped, stressful conditions. Their ears had been cropped and their tails docked—all illegal here but still allowed under import loopholes. Snowy, a heavily pregnant dog, was smuggled during the final 10% of her pregnancy, in breach of current law. She endured the journey in squalid, dark and suffocating conditions without adequate food or water. These journeys not only traumatise the animals but endanger the lives of unborn puppies and the mothers carrying them.
I did not have much experience of the importation of animals into our country until my preparations for this and previous debates. I am aware that in my constituency there is an illegal trade of puppies, which are kept in small, cramped cages outside until they reach the age when they can be sold. These cruelly treated puppies can be sold for thousands and thousands of pounds. I hope that part of the work we are doing on the Bill can also look to address that.
On the exploitation of loopholes, we have heard that the current pet travel scheme designed for holidaymakers has been systematically abused by organised puppy traffickers. Breeders mislabel commercial sales as personal pet movements to sidestep import rules, veterinary checks and regulations. Smuggling heavily pregnant dogs is a deliberate move, allowing traffickers to appear legitimate by showing the puppies with their mother, deceiving buyers into thinking that the litter was bred responsibly in the UK.
These are not one-off cases. This is organised animal trafficking, often international in scale, that thrives on weak legislation, poor enforcement and consumer deception. Without the Bill, we are effectively enabling profit from pain through a loophole-ridden system that is ripe for abuse.
On constituent engagement on this issue, through Battersea alone over 14,680 people across 649 constituencies have contacted their MPs to urge them to support the Bill. This is a groundswell of support that cuts across party lines. While I have only had one email from a constituent directly about the Bill, I have had over 87 emails in this Parliament from constituents calling for stronger animal welfare protections. This speaks to a powerful public mandate. People are demanding action to end the suffering of trafficked animals and uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader on welfare. Passing this Bill is the right and compassionate thing to do.
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.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I rise to support this vital Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for bringing it to the House. As all Members will know, animal welfare is a major concern for our constituents, and nowhere is that more true than Bolton West. The Bill has been long awaited, and I am delighted that this Parliament will finally deliver where previous Parliaments were unable to deliver. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it should be a point of pride that, to reflect that, we strive to have the toughest animal welfare protections anywhere in the world.
My mailbox and postbag reflect the animal welfare concerns that I have and that we have heard during the debate. Dean, a constituent of mine in Daisy Hill, emailed to say:
“According to respondents to the Cats Protection Cats and Their Stats (CATS) 2024 survey, 4% of the cats that were obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad. The importation of cats and dogs with mutilations (such as declawing and ear cropping), lack of vaccinations and health checks, and dangerous transport conditions present a significant risk to animal welfare.”
We know that the UK’s biosecurity is compromised by pet smuggling, given that animals may carry transmittable diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which put both humans and animals at risk. The rising price of cats, in particular pedigrees, means that illegally importing cats is becoming increasingly lucrative for criminals. Cats Protection statistics show that 45% of the cats obtained in the past 12 months were pedigree; for the first time, more pedigree cats than moggies were acquired in a 12-month period. The Bill is a vital opportunity to put in place the measures to tackle pet smuggling that could not complete their passage in the last Parliament.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the volunteers across Cats Protection and at Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home for the work that they do every day to keep rescued animals safe? Does he agree that those charities need our help and support, and that the Bill will help to amplify the work that they do?
I will also put it on the record that I had two rescue animals—a cat and a dog—who both lived to 19 years of age. Sadly, they are no longer with us, but for the sake of Hansard I want to mention their names: Cannie and Roohi.
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the critical work of animal welfare charities across the country. They can make such a difference.
Diane in Ladybridge emailed to say:
“This Bill is a major step forward in improving the lives of animals.”
She is delighted that it will make it
“much harder to exploit pet travel rules to illegally traffic puppies and kittens bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK.”
She also noted:
“Dogs and cats involved in bad breeding—whether they’re used for breeding, or bred poorly themselves—don’t have a fair chance in life. They’re more likely to have health problems, and poor socialisation means they can struggle with life as a pet.”
I am really pleased that the Bill will finally close a loophole to address the issue of dogs and cats with illegal mutilations such as cropped ears or docked tails and help to bring down demand for those features. We have spoken about the social media impact. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians and figures in public life to continue to drive public awareness about why those procedures are mutilations and the adverse impacts they have on the animals and, frankly, society as a whole.
I am really pleased that the Bill will make it much harder to exploit pet travel rules to traffic illegally puppies, kittens and ferrets bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK. Sadly, these activities can involve gangs who are associated with serious organised crime, which I am personally keen on tackling during my time in Parliament. By bringing in tougher restrictions, we can protect animal welfare and also cut a source of criminal income—an issue that, one way or another, I continue to raise in this House.
While cats and dogs are overwhelmingly the most popular pets in this country, it would be remiss of me, as a northern MP, not to reference the humble ferret, mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader). Ferrets are a northern icon. On that topic, our other northern icons, Oasis, are today reforming for their first gig in 16 years. To conclude, having listened to my constituents on the vital importance of protecting animal welfare, it is fair to say that both they and I are “mad fer ret”.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on bringing forward this Bill. A year on from the general election, it is nice to have one of those days when there is a sequence of Bills that we can all get behind and support and that should do great good for animals in this country and, hopefully, for some of the humans as well.
When I gave my maiden speech, I highlighted that my predecessor and I—in keeping with convention, I said something nice about him—are both vegetarians and that animal welfare is a cause that is close to both of our hearts. If we look at most of his time in office, we can see his extensive efforts around animal welfare. My contribution has been far more limited, in part because of the number of constituency issues that I felt needed to take priority during that time, but I am pleased to be here today to support this measure to improve the wellbeing of animals.
I recall a written question my predecessor asked that slightly relates to today’s debate, and it was in relation to the importation and exportation of reindeer from the United Kingdom. Thanks to that question, we are now aware that in 2020 and in 2021, there were two imports of reindeer and one export of reindeer. Presumably, Santa’s sleigh has separate licensing arrangements in the United Kingdom.
Import controls have a significant role to play in my constituency. Crawley constituency is home to Gatwick airport, and its animal reception centre gives people the important ability to relocate with their pets and also to bring more exotic animals into the United Kingdom. Local authorities also have a significant role to play in these processes. During my time as a councillor, I saw a number of requests for permits for exotic animals, resulting in somewhat confusing conversations about why someone really needed a full-sized crocodile in the middle of a housing estate. That licence was not approved.
The hon. Member for Winchester is to be commended for bringing forward this Bill, and the House is privileged to benefit from his extensive professional experience in understanding the important role that the Bill will play in preventing animal abuse and, hopefully, enhancing wider animal welfare.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and we should feel proud that the legislative framework in this country is already world-leading. Despite all the measures we have in place, I think Members would agree, given the range of correspondence we get from our constituents, that there are probably more separate campaigns on animal welfare than on any other policy area—that has certainly been my experience. It is important that we do not rest on our laurels. We must accept that the job is not done and that, as technology moves things forward, additional measures will need to be put in place to improve animal wellbeing.
The issue of social media and animal abuse online has been raised in the debate, and the hon. Member for Winchester outlined the role that influencers have to play. In addition, there are far too many groups online that are dedicated to animal abuse. Constituents of mine have attempted to shut down such groups, but rather than being supported by social media companies in trying to address the problems, they have instead found themselves reported by the perpetrators of the abuse and have faced having their own accounts shut down and being left without the support they need to bring the networks of abuse to an end.
The worst examples of that type of animal abuse that I am aware of were brought up with me in a constituency surgery, and they relate to the torture of baby monkeys, which are chosen because when they are put in a baby grow, people can convince themselves that they are a baby. Although that is clearly illegal already, the current requirements on social media companies to act are insufficient. I will not burden the House by informing hon. Members of the things that I now know about what happens to those monkeys; all I can say is that after my constituents left, I spent some minutes dealing with the tears about what had happened to those monkeys. We must do better around this, and I very much hope that moving forward we are able to do so.
I enthusiastically support the Bill, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Meta must be made to answer for not acting to bring an end to animal abuse on its networks and for its active profiting from the advertising that appears on those networks. Advertisers must be made aware that part of what they are paying for when they advertise on Facebook is the maintenance of animal abuse networks. I hope advertisers think more carefully about that in the future.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am proud to speak in this debate as the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North—a seat I did not hold this time last year, but proudly hold today, although technically not for a year until 4.30 tomorrow morning.
I want to speak today in strong support of the Bill. It is a vital step forward in our duty to protect animals from cruelty and exploitation. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for introducing the Bill and for his service as a vet. I know the city of Winchester well, as I did my teaching degree at King Alfred’s College. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), Winchester will always have a special place in my heart, particularly Jesters, a pub I worked in for many years, although it does not exist any more.
Portsmouth is a city that cares. Many of my constituents have shared their heartbreak at hearing of how young animals are brought into the UK sometimes under age, unwell and traumatised, just to be sold for profit. The Bill addresses that. It bans the importation of puppies and kittens under the age of six months. It stops the transportation of heavily pregnant animals and prohibits the import of animals that have undergone unnecessary mutilations such as ear cropping or declawing; those practices are outlawed in the UK but are still far too common abroad. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), I believe that social media platforms and influencers should do more to stop that.
These reforms are not only overdue; they are essential. In Portsmouth, we are fortunate to have a number of deeply committed local charities that deal with the consequences of these inhumane practices. I would like to pay tribute to some of those charities. Those at Cats Protection’s Portsmouth branch work tirelessly to rescue, rehabilitate and rehome abandoned or abused cats across the city. Its volunteers provide vital neutering and microchipping services, which help to reduce the stray population and improve feline welfare. They frequently take in cats that have come from unsuitable backgrounds, some of which are linked to international trafficking or illegal sales.
I also want to recognise Portsmouth Cats Lost, Found and Rehomed, which is led by the inspirational Penny Parker. Since 2013, the group has reunited countless lost cats with their families, offered shelter to strays and provided veterinary care to those in desperate need. Its small but mighty rescue cabin, Penny’s place, is a beacon of hope for animals who might otherwise just have been left to suffer.
I also applaud Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue in Cosham. Although it does not support cats, dogs or ferrets, it has recently received national recognition for its outstanding work in exotic animal welfare, and Bernice Buckingham and her team of trustees and volunteers do an excellent job. Their educational programme and specialist care have made Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue a trusted name not only in Portsmouth but across the south.
Finally, Phoenix Rehoming has won awards, including animal rescue of the year 2024 and most dedicated pet rehoming service 2024, and I wish the team luck with their nomination for animal charity team of the year 2025. Phoenix Rehoming has a strong footprint in Portsmouth. It works with foster families and communities to rescue and rehome dogs, many of whom have been illegally imported or abandoned after being smuggled as part of this illicit trade.
These organisations are doing heroic work, but they should not have to shoulder the burden of weak regulation and criminal cruelty. By tightening important laws, this Bill reduces the risk of trafficked animals entering the UK and ensures a greater oversight, through veterinary checks, microchipping and enforcement powers. It also protects families in Portsmouth, who often fork out quite a lot of money for these pets and then find they have been sold sick animals, with fake papers, and are left not only heartbroken but facing thousands of pounds in vet bills.
The legislation is not just about animal welfare, but community resilience. It gives our local charities a fighting chance, pet owners peace of mind and, most importantly, vulnerable animals the protections they deserve. I represent a city that believes in fairness, compassion and responsibility, so I am proud to support the Bill on behalf of the people of Portsmouth North. Let us put an end to cruelty at our borders and build a country that treats all living beings with dignity.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this private Member’s Bill. As he is a veterinary surgeon, I know that this topic is close to his heart, as it is close to the hearts of many hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) spoke with passion and paid tribute to Selaine Saxby, the former Member for North Devon who brought this Bill forward in the last Parliament, and I thank him for that tribute. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) quoted Mahatma Gandhi to great effect. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) rightly pointed out that the Bill extends to Scotland, and that sections 1 to 4 apply to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) reminded us how important animal welfare is to all our constituents, and the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) reminded us that while our animal welfare laws in Britain are world leading, we can always do better. Finally, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) paid tribute to those many charities in her constituency that dedicate themselves to improving animal welfare.
Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of improving animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we banned the keeping of primates as pets, introduced pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increased the penalties for animal cruelty, banned the export of livestock for slaughter or fattening, and recognised animal sentience in law, through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The establishment of the Animal Sentience Committee ensures that all legislation passed by this House considers the principle of animal sentience. In 2020, we introduced Lucy’s law, which banned the third-party sale of puppies and kittens. These regulations helped to protect animals from being kept in shockingly poor conditions, separated from their mothers at a young age and deprived of human or animal interaction for most of their lives.
The animal welfare Bill before us today is another example of doing the right thing to protect those pets that we all love. Many charities have been tirelessly campaigning for this legislation for many years, including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, Four Paws, Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation.
The Bill aims to close existing loopholes that are used far too often by dishonest breeders and smugglers to disguise commercial imports of cats and dogs as non-commercial movements, in a bid to avoid compliance with existing welfare standards. I welcome raising the minimum age at which cats and dogs can be imported to six months. That will curtail the ability of unscrupulous puppy smugglers to bring those puppies into the UK.
The Bill also further restricts the import of heavily pregnant animals. The Dogs Trust has seen a record 600% increase in the number of heavily pregnant bitches intercepted at the border since 2021. In preparing for this debate, I have read about the most appalling cases of pregnant animals being transported in cramped conditions to give birth, with little food or water. This barbaric practice can permanently damage the health of both the mother and the puppies or kittens.
Similarly, we support the decision to cap the number of animals transported non-commercially at five per vehicle, rather than five per person as at present. That will close another loophole exploited by smugglers that allows them to transport several dozen animals in one trip, claiming ownership of five per person.
I am equally glad to see this legislation ban the import of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations into Great Britain. According to animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA, incidents of ear cropping have skyrocketed twentyfold in the last decade. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ending that horrible practice. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who, like the hon. Member for Winchester, is a veterinary surgeon and a passionate advocate of that reform. Of course, mutilation is not limited to dogs, and this legislation will also outlaw the declawing of cats. That is another horrible procedure that has no medical basis, and we support that measure.
This is a good Bill. Its measures are well considered, backed by experts and charities and designed to implement positive change to protect our beloved pets. I am pleased to confirm on behalf of the Opposition that we support this Bill, and I sincerely hope it will gain the support it deserves from the whole of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on championing this Bill and guiding its passage through the House. I have welcomed the expertise he has lent to this debate, as well as his information and the way in which he used it in Committee. I was really fascinated to learn about the “Cut the Crop” campaign, and I am keen to hear a bit more about how we can support that.
I thank all Members who have contributed to constructive and positive debates during each of the Bill’s stages. I have to say that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) must be delighted that he did not pursue his career on the forecourt. He mentioned work of the Animal Welfare Society and his passionate membership of it. He also reminded us all of the importance of doorstep dogs and—one of my favourites—dogs at polling stations, which always seem to appear whenever the election day is. I thank him for his support and join him in supporting Four Paws, Battersea and the Countryside Alliance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned dog-on-dog offences. Those are offences under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and we are working with the Crown Prosecution Service to update its guidance to make that clear. We are also working with stakeholders to encourage responsible dog ownership and reduce dog attacks. As my hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out, this is about a minority of dog owners, but it is extremely distressing for anybody involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned stray dogs and the difficulty they have in gaining trust, which is so true, as well as the damage that cruelty to animals can do throughout a pet’s life. He also mentioned the importance of social media and how we can ensure that all of us in this House are sending the right message that we think the practice of mutilating animals is unacceptable.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his support and for raising the importance of ending smuggling. Smuggling is the wrong thing to do for the welfare of animals and for our biosecurity, and that is a really important point. He also raised how we need to bring down the demand for mutilated dogs, and I think we can do more across the whole House on that issue. Of course, I agree with him that ferrets are a northern icon.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his support. He is right that Santa’s sleigh has a separate licensing system, so there is no difficulty in reindeers passing between any borders on the night of 24 December. I recognise his support for the welfare of animals, and we must do better. I will take away his important concerns about social media advertising.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in thanking—I hope I get all of them—Cats Protection Portsmouth, Portsmouth Lost, Found and Rehomed, Penny’s Place, Phoenix Rehoming, and Bernice Buckingham at Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue for all the work they do. [Interruption.] I was so close. I thank them for all the work they do across her constituency.
As noted by the hon. Member for Winchester, it is nice to have the whole House united on a matter of animal welfare—what a nice way to end the week? The nation is also united on animal welfare. Few topics have as much engagement and support from constituents, as evidenced by the frequent correspondence I receive in Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice and that I am sure all of us across the House receive. The public’s passion for pets is very much reflected in the statistics. According to the PDSA, pet ownership has increased in recent years with over half of adults owning a pet. As the proud owner of my cats Serena, Meglatron and Lily, I welcome the Bill and am thrilled that the measures covers cats because they deserve equal protection as dogs. I pay tribute to my daughter Isabel who is here this morning and the magic way she has with animals. She has a particular talent, when we have had young kittens, in helping them grow up to be soft and gentle animals. In fact, our beloved Thomas used to go to bed with her like a small teddy to be cuddled at night-time. I would go in and see them sitting watching television together—honestly, he was more like a dog than a cat. That only goes to reinforce the point made that when animals are treated well when they are little, they grow up to be soft, gentle and loving animals.
It is only right that imported cats should have parity —I nearly said pawrity—of protection, as they do across our domestic animal welfare laws. While we are talking about the wonderful things we have across our constituencies, I want to mention Jenny’s Cat House. Jenny takes in loads of animals that are rescued and lost and found literally into her house—it has become a charity now. She does incredible work as many do across the constituency.
Mike Reader
As we are talking about constituency issues, a sad thing happened in Northampton a few weeks ago. There was an arson attack in Dunelm, and that spread to Pets at Home in the St James retail park. Unfortunately, that fire ripped through the vet, the dog groomers and the store. Will the Minister join me in thanking all the volunteers, vets, groomers and the fire service who put their lives at risk to save so many pets—dogs, cats and others—as that fire took hold?
Emma Hardy
I of course join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved. It is horrific to think that somebody would wish to attack a veterinary building where they know animals receive treatment and where they live. I hope that whoever has done that will be quickly and firmly brought to justice.
As the number of pet owners has increased, there is a number of people travelling with their pets. In 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britain. While most of those were genuine movements, the rise in non-commercial movements also accounts for the uptick in unscrupulous traders that abuse our pet travel rules to illegally smuggle puppies and kittens into the country. Due to its illicit nature, we cannot know the true number of pets illegally smuggled into Great Britain. What we do know, however, is the devastating effect it can have on the health and welfare of the animals that suffer as a result. I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill. These measures represent a crucial step forward in our collective efforts to tackle the pet smuggling trade.
As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to ending puppy smuggling, and the measures in the Bill will close loopholes in our pet travel rules that smugglers exploit. The Bill will tighten these rules by reducing the number of pets that can travel in a single non-commercial movement, and requiring the movement of a pet to be explicitly linked to that of its owner. That will fundamentally disrupt the tactics we know illegal traders employ to avoid more stringent checks and oversight. I am reassured that the Bill gives the Government the power to reduce those limits further should there be evidence that our pet travel rules continue to be abused.
As the hon. Member for Winchester rightly highlighted, the Bill also introduces powers for the Government to tackle low-welfare imports through secondary legislation. The Government must first use these regulation-making powers to introduce three impactful restrictions—restrictions raising the minimum age at which dogs and cats can be moved into Great Britain to six months; banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats; and banning the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated. We want fewer low-welfare operations supplying pets to the GB market and, fundamentally, we want fewer animals to suffer. I know that colleagues from across the House are keen to see these regulations make it on to the statute book as soon as possible.
This Government are committed to introducing the prohibitions in the Bill as soon as practicable. Delivering these measures through secondary legislation will allow the Government to work closely with stakeholders to understand where appropriate exemptions from the measures may be needed. These will need to be carefully considered to ensure that we do not inadvertently create any loopholes that could be abused. Of course, the enforcement of the measures will be crucial to their success. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency will continue to be responsible for enforcing pet travel and commercial import requirements. We will work closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the right tools and guidance to enforce these measures effectively.
I welcome the Bill’s new powers to make regulations, which will provide authorities with a clear process and enforcement powers when presented with a non-compliant pet. Regulations will allow for the cost of detention to be met and, if necessary, for the animal to be rehomed. They will bolster the enforcement tools available to agencies, empowering them to take appropriate action if the new rules are not followed, while ensuring that we protect the welfare of pets that are imported illegally.
In Committee, the Government supported several amendments to the Bill, which provided drafting clarification and the necessary flexibilities for genuine owners who will impacted by the new rules due to protected characteristics or circumstances beyond their control. I was pleased to see those amendments pass, and I am confident that they will strengthen the Bill. The Government supported amendments to narrow the Bill’s power to make criminal offences. Those amendment will ensure that any criminal offences created using this power are foreseeable, having been set out in the Bill, and will receive the appropriate scrutiny from Parliament. The offences specified in the Bill have been informed by engagement with enforcement bodies to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
As touched on by the hon. Member for Winchester, the Bill received a clarification drafting change in Committee. This change made it clear that the existing definition of “pet animal” in our pet travel regulations is not affected by the Bill. Ultimately, it ensures that the status quo is maintained, and the effective operation of our pet travel regime.
The Bill was also amended to allow an appropriate authority to grant an exemption from the tighter non-commercial pet travel rules, as amended in the Bill, in exceptional or compelling circumstances. I reassure hon. Members that this mechanism will be tightly controlled. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill will not result in loopholes that could be exploited by smugglers. The mechanism will give the Government flexibility to deal with unanticipated events that may impact the ability of genuine pet owners to follow the more stringent pet travel rules introduced by the Bill—for example, in the case of force majeure, such as a natural disaster that ground planes or a medical emergency that prevents owners from travelling within five days of their pet.
Furthermore, the amendments will ensure that the new measures introduced by the Bill do not adversely impact protected groups, such as assistant dog users, who may wish to travel together in groups larger than five. This has been carefully considered by the Government in accordance with our public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Importantly, the amendments do not provide blanket exemptions from the rules; instead, each case will be considered individually. The Government will work with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to ensure that there is a clear process to follow, and that exemptions are granted only in truly exceptional or compelling circumstances.
Finally, the Government also supported an amendment that removed the power to make further consequential amendments arising from the Bill’s changes to the pet travel rules and corresponding import rules. Since the Bill was introduced, we have further assessed the changes to legislation that might be necessary as a result of the Bill, and we are confident that no further amendments are required. We are keen to take no more power than is necessary. The amendments have not been considered lightly, and I am in no doubt that they improve the deliverability and ability to enforce this Bill.
Several MPs have mentioned our work to reset relations with the EU. As announced at the UK-EU leaders’ summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and EU have agreed to work towards having a common sanitary and phytosanitary area, which would make taking pets to the EU on holiday easier and cheaper. It is important that we get the right agreement for the UK, so we are not putting any arbitrary deadlines on negotiations. We will provide more information on pet passports in due course; in the meantime, owners will still need an animal health certificate for their dog, cat or ferret if they are travelling from Great Britain to an EU country. While I am unable to comment on live negotiations, I reassure hon. Members that this Government will continue to support this Bill while negotiating an SPS agreement with the EU.
As set out in the Government’s manifesto, we are committed to ending puppy smuggling and delivering a better future for animals. I am pleased to say that this Bill does just that. Its key measures deliver crucial recommendations by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and tackle multiple concerns that have been raised by stakeholders regarding loopholes in our pet travel rules. I commend the hon. Member for Winchester on taking this important Bill through the House, and I very much look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Dr Chambers
I thank all Members who have been involved with this Bill at all its stages, including in Committee, and for forwarding me a lot of correspondence from their constituents about it. I also thank the Government and the Minister for their support for this Bill, and the civil servants and the Clerks of the House for the support they gave my office in getting this done.
About 10 years ago, I was on the British Veterinary Association’s policy committee, and we were pushing to tackle puppy smuggling. We were working with other organisations, such as the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, FOUR PAWS and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Today is a great day for all those organisations, which have wanted this to happen for so long. I thank Lord Trees, who is kindly sponsoring this Bill through the upper House. He was my dean at Liverpool vet school, and in my third year, he failed my parasitology viva, which meant I had to spend a summer revising and coming back for resits instead of having fun. Given that this Bill will help prevent parasitological diseases from coming into the UK, I hope he might consider giving me a retrospective distinction. I know that the Bill will be in good hands in the upper House.
I also thank my team. A private Member’s Bill is a lot of work, especially for a new team. I noticed a couple of last-minute changes to my speech—I think I can guess who made some of them. I thank my team, including my chief of staff, Tom Wood, and his cat Luma, who is clearly the most intelligent cat in the world. I also thank Emily Kitchen and her cat Tango—the most clumsy cat in the world—and Sophie Hammond, my parliamentary assistant, who is on maternity leave.
John Grady
Does the hon. Member agree that it is most appropriate that Madam Deputy Speaker, who is Member of Parliament for Bradford, is in the Chair for this Bill’s Third Reading? David Hockney, one of Bradford’s most famous sons, is a wonderful painter of dogs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am the proud owner of two lovely dogs.
Dr Chambers
I look forward to seeing those paintings. I thank Sophie Hammond for all the work she did on this Bill in its early stages, and Hayley Puddefoot, who has taken over from her.
I am so happy today, because no longer will dogs and cats be taken away from their parents at a hugely young age and put in the back of a van, perhaps having been sedated or mutilated, and perhaps while sick, and where they may become overheated. That will come to an end now, which is a great step forward for animal welfare. Finally, I thank all the people of Winchester who elected me to serve as their MP a year ago today. I am so pleased to be able to bring forward a piece of legislation that shows people that what happens in Parliament has a real impact out in the real world.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Monday 7th July 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberAnimal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Friday 5th September 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberAnimal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will know of my enduring commitment to animal welfare. As a veterinary surgeon and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, I have tried to be a vocal advocate on a range of animal health and welfare issues.
I am honoured to present the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill to the House today. I thank all those involved with its successful passage in the Commons, notably the Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers. It is a real pleasure to acknowledge Danny’s contribution, because I was privileged to be one of his academic teachers at the University of Liverpool’s veterinary school when he was a student and I the dean; I got to know him very well at that time. I was heartened to see how well the Bill was received in the Commons, and I am confident that it will achieve broad support in the House of Lords and that, together, we can tackle the illegal pet trade that causes such substantial welfare harm to our most popular pets.
It might be useful to outline briefly some of the history that has led us to the current situation. The Bill covers dogs, cats, and ferrets for two reasons. First and specifically, because they are all highly susceptible to rabies, a terrible and universally lethal viral disease, affecting both animals and humans. Because of their close contact with humans, those species are the most likely source of rabies infections in humans. Secondly, because of more recent criminal misuse of the existing travel rules, the welfare of our most popular pets is being seriously compromised. Before 2000, the UK kept our animals and us free of rabies by requiring all imported dogs, cats and ferrets to undergo six months of quarantine. However, with the advent of effective vaccines for dogs, cats and ferrets, and increasing human travel, substantial public pressure grew to replace quarantine with compulsory rabies vaccinations, thereby allowing people in the United Kingdom to take their pets abroad, often to Europe, and back without quarantine. Since then, however, there has been a huge increase in pet movements, and data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that the number of non-commercial pet movements in 2011 of 100,000 rose to over 368,000 in 2024. That was compared with figures from a 1995 Hansard, which suggest that approximately only 8,000 dogs, cats or ferrets were imported per year before quarantine was abolished.
This huge increase gives rise to concerns that the less stringent pet travel requirements intended for genuine pet owners are being abused by commercial traders, who are moving pets for sale or rehoming, and taking advantage of the increased demand for pets, particularly dogs. Published sources have estimated that we need approximately 950,000 puppies per year in the UK to maintain our current dog population, but there is insufficient UK supply to provide those numbers. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, some of this demand is therefore being met through the illegal imports of young dogs. In 2021, for example, an investigation by FOUR PAWS International found that about 50% of puppy adverts surveyed on the UK’s Gumtree website were found to be of illegal imported origin.
Every responsible pet owner wants to give their new puppy or kitten the best start in life. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. Often, these illegally imported animals have been raised in poor conditions abroad, transported for many hours in bad conditions and have arrived in their destinations not in the best of health and perhaps not vaccinated against various puppy diseases. These animals may thus have health and behavioural problems, and may not have socialised properly with humans, which can create serious problems both for the pet and, subsequently, for the owner. This Bill will close these loopholes by making it more difficult and less profitable for these traders to import animals under the guise of owners travelling with their own pets.
Including kittens alongside puppies in the Bill mirrors other key pieces of animal welfare legislation to ensure that there is parity for cats and kittens alongside dogs and puppies. The Bill’s changes to non-commercial pet travel rules also extend to ferrets. As I mentioned earlier, this species is susceptible to rabies, and, as a country, we take our biosecurity very seriously; it is paramount that we continue to protect our rabies-free status as well as improve the welfare of our pets.
On the non-commercial pet travel rules, the Bill will supplement the current rules and close loopholes. It will reduce the number of pets that can be brought into the country in a single commercial movement under these rules, from five per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. Currently, deceitful traders can claim ownership of up to five pets each. Therefore, if you pack a van with five people, you can perfectly legally bring 25 animals into the country under the current conditions. Reducing the number of pets permitted in a non-commercial movement will make it harder and less profitable for disguised trades to take place.
The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet can take place only within five days of the movement of its owner. The new rules will ensure that pets can be moved only by an authorised person if the owner also completes the same journey within five days of their pet. This addresses a loophole that has been used by traders claiming to be authorised persons as a way of bringing animals into the country commercially for sale. By introducing a tighter link between the owner’s and the pet’s travel, the Bill seeks to ensure that authorised persons are used only by genuine owners for genuine, non-commercial pet movements and not for disguised trade.
The Bill also provides the Government with the discretion to determine that a movement should still be treated as non-commercial, even where it does not comply with the new requirements. This will, in effect, enable the Government to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that groups with protected characteristics—for example, assistance dog users—are not adversely impacted, provided there is sufficient justification for the exemption. The ability to grant exemptions will also allow flexibility in emergency situations, such as when genuine owners are unexpectedly unable to travel within five days of their pet due to medical emergencies, natural disasters or other unforeseen circumstances. The Government have been clear that these exceptions will be granted only in very limited circumstances; they will be tightly controlled and subject to strict criteria to prevent misuse. I am sure the Minister will touch on this later in her response.
In addition, the Bill will introduce a regulation-making power to restrict the low-welfare movement of animals into the UK. The first time the Government use this power, they must do so to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of puppies and kittens below six months old, heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and dogs and cats that have been subjected to non-exempt mutilations, such as cropped ears.
On the minimum age of import of six months, we currently see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or younger, despite current rules prohibiting that This can have health and welfare implications for the animals and, indeed, it transgresses current rabies vaccination requirements. Puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately at six months old, enabling this limit to be successfully enforced.
On pregnancy, if this restriction were not introduced, traders might respond to the restrictions by importing more pregnant pets instead. Therefore, the new regulations to be brought forward by the Bill will prevent dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant—that is two-thirds of the normal gestation—being brought into the Great Britain. At that stage, pregnancy is much more easily judged—for example, by abdominal swelling and mammary gland development.
Finally, the Bill will introduce a power to restrict the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails, and declawed cats. These mutilations are illegal here in the UK, unless they are performed under specific exemptions. If we were to allow animals that have suffered mutilations to be brought into Great Britain, that would undermine the enforcement of the prohibition in the UK.
The main enabling power provides flexibility to introduce exemptions to these prohibitions via secondary legislation. That is a very important point to note; however, such exemptions must be carefully considered to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited.
The Bill introduces a limited power to create criminal offences. These may be created for breaching any of the three prohibitions I have just set out, for breaching any other restrictions or prohibitions that may be created under the main enabling power, for breaching any conditions attached to exemptions to such prohibitions, or for breaching the requirement to carry out checks on animals being brought into the UK.
To aid authorities in enforcement, criminal offences that may be created may also include obstruction offences. The Bill will strengthen the current enforcement regime by introducing powers to make regulations in regard to dogs, cats and ferrets that have been seized or detained. These regulations will enable enforcement bodies to recoup costs associated with care and accommodation, and to rehome animals in cases where they have been abandoned. That is extremely important, because it is very costly to hold on to animals that have been seized. The Bill also provides powers to make regulations which enable monetary penalties to be imposed, in order to strengthen compliance and deter unlawful activity.
The changes the Bill makes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme—including amending the limits on the number of animals permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement, and introducing an express requirement for travel to align closely with the owner’s movements—will apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill grants regulation-making powers that extend across all four nations of the UK: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, the duty to enact the prohibitions the first time the enabling power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. I stress that movements within the UK are unaffected by the Bill.
The Bill is a significant step forward in preventing this cruel trade and will significantly improve animal welfare. It is supported by multiple relevant organisations, including the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS International, Battersea, our Animal Sentience Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, and many others. Two similar Bills in the past few years have not successfully completed their passage through Parliament, for various procedural reasons. In a further consideration of this Bill, let us make this third time lucky. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill and thank our two parliamentary veterinary Members, Dr Danny Chambers in the other place and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for their sponsorship of this measure, introduced with the backing and support of the Government. This is an enabling Bill, setting minimum thresholds on welfare and conditions for the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets, long linked through their susceptibility to rabies. That subsequent and changeable regulations can be introduced following this measure to combat further ingenious exploitations of potential loopholes is to be welcomed as a step change in effective control.
I received many submissions on animal welfare, on dogs in particular, and I declare my interest as a BVA honorary associate. I thank all those who have written to me, and the British Veterinary Association in particular, which has conducted many surveys of its members, who have to deal with the unfortunate consequences of the huge rise in puppy smuggling. I also thank Andreas Milligan of the Metropolitan Police, a police dog handler who is familiar with the circumstances behind this trade, the abuses that occur and the necessary measures to combat them.
This Bill is important to deter the smugglers, improve the welfare of pets during non-commercial importation, reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases entering the UK, and protect potential customers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his excellent introduction to the Bill.
If I have one reservation about the Bill, it concerns what happens to seized pets detained at the borders. The Bill makes little mention of them other than in Clause 1(6) and (7). Can the House understand what provision is envisaged under forthcoming regulations? Clause 1(7)(a) allows for
“a specified person to meet the costs of detaining”
the animal. Crucially, Clause 1(7)(b) enables
“ownership of a dog, cat or ferret to be transferred in specified circumstances”.
Paragraph 24 of the Explanatory Notes does not provide any more clarity. I ask my noble friend the Minister, what is envisaged? If ownership is transferred, could the animal be put down in various circumstances? Furthermore, this provision could be used as a loophole to rehome rescued mutilated animals, defeating the object of the Bill. Can my noble friend provide clarity on this point?
I received many submissions from people anxious that rescue organisations will not be able to help mutilated animals in the future. Can my noble friend confirm that mutilated animals must never be imported and that rescue organisations can continue to receive distressed animals through the commercial route for importing animals?
The RSPCA reports a frightening 2,000% increase in ear cropping over the last 10 years. Does my noble friend agree that more clarity is needed on rescue situations to avoid unnecessary distress?
On further provisions and regulations to brought forward, has my noble friend considered building into future reviews asking front-line officers to come forward as a group with recommendations and reflections on their experiences in undertaking inspections at import points? This could well provide necessary information on how the legislation is working and its effectiveness in ending this malpractice.
I hope the Bill passes without amendment to give it every chance to become law.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for setting out the detail of this Bill and for his long-standing commitment to animal welfare—and, indeed, human welfare. He makes a compelling case for its swift introduction, and I am grateful to him and the Minister for the meeting earlier to discuss the details of the Bill.
I fully support this Bill and hope that it will move through this place quickly and unamended. We know why it is important. We are seeing the exploitation of the current non-commercial route system of imports, and this is impacting animal welfare. We have all heard distressing stories about the treatment of animals being imported through this non-commercial route. We are seeing a burgeoning illegal trade, where criminals are exploiting the current system in an organised and lucrative way, with a clear focus on money rather than the health and welfare of animals. We are seeing a lack of consumer protection, with well-meaning potential pet owners finding it difficult to get the knowledge and reassurance that they would like. So I fully support this Bill, and I hope that in her response, the Minister can come back on a few points.
First, I would like to hear more about enforcement: have the provisions in the Bill been discussed with the police and Border Force, and do they feel that they are sufficient? Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, we have been contacted by organisations concerned that the Bill will stop the rescue and bringing in of animals that have been mistreated through mutilation. Can the Minister confirm whether these organisations should be using the commercial or non-commercial route? If the reduction of the number of animals allowed to five per vehicle, rather than five per person, is not sufficient to stop bad practice, can she confirm that this could be reduced further, though not increased, through secondary legislation? I do not think that we should risk losing this Bill, as we have done previously, by bringing forward any amendments, but I should be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on those points.
Finally, on public education, I am very much an aspiring dog owner, and I hope that one day I will have the opportunity to care for a dog in the way that I would like. Until that day, I bide my time considering where I would find my future dogs: researching both pedigree breeds and breeders and rescue organisations and charities. Of course, it is not just their breeding that can detrimentally impact the future health of a pet; the treatment that they receive in the first few weeks and months of their lives can also have a permanent impact on their behaviour. I speak from experience here, as the owner of two rescue cats that are, sadly, deeply and seemingly permanently traumatised because of abuse that they suffered in the first weeks and months of their lives, most probably at a kitten farm. There is a wealth of information out there, but it can be difficult to navigate to get the assurance that animals have been cared for in a way that any responsible owner would like. Alongside this Bill, is there more that the Government can do to help educate prospective pet owners about what they should look for to ensure that they have a healthy and happy pet?
This Bill, when fully enacted, will lead to a marked improvement in animal welfare. It will tackle the burgeoning illegal trade in animals, and it will improve consumer protection. I hope all noble Lords will support it.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this long-overdue Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on skilfully steering it through this House. My noble friend Lady Fookes has asked me to say how much she wishes she had been able to be here—she is at a long-standing event for the War Widows’ Association—and that she, too, supports the Bill.
I want to talk specifically about the plight of cats and kittens being smuggled into the country. I declare an interest as patron of International Cat Care. I am also grateful to Cats Protection and Battersea for their tireless work in this area. I declare an interest as a cat owner, as I know is the Minister, proud owner of Sid. The commercial market for cats has been changing over the last few years. Cats Protection’s Cats and Their Stats report for 2024 revealed a significant rise in the number of pure bred and pedigree cats in the UK. For the first time, the number of these cats acquired over the last year has overtaken the market for moggies like my own, with significant consequences because of the increase in the smuggling of such cats from abroad. According to the Cats Protection survey, 4% of the cats acquired in the 12-month survey period were from abroad. That is an astonishing 65,000 cats and kittens.
As any cat owner knows simply from a visit to the vet, travel is very traumatic for most cats, particularly for very young ones. It causes severe stress, in turn causing serious clinical symptoms. Yet far too many cats are being transported or smuggled into this country in distressing conditions, often many in a vehicle at the same time. This Bill will help tackle the problem by banning the import of kittens under six months and of pregnant cats in the last one-third of their gestation period, and reducing the number of cats that can enter in a single motor vehicle to five. That is still a large number and, ideally, I think that number should be three per vehicle, which is still a significant number and would not impact in any way on the vast majority of UK cat owners. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the number was set at five, not three.
The result of all that will not just be an improvement in the welfare of imported cats; it will, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, protect humans from imported diseases. Cat smuggling is known to be a public health risk, with some diseases being zoonotic: they can spread from cats to humans, with potentially fatal consequences. We need to ensure we avert that risk.
I have often raised the issue of the horrendous impact on cats of mutilations undertaken for cosmetic or designer purposes. One important aspect of this Bill is to ban the importation of cats with mutilations, particularly those that have been declawed, a barbaric and painful procedure. As noble Lords know, declawing is illegal here, and we must deter any market interest developing in bringing such benighted animals to the UK.
If I have one problem with this Bill, it is that it is enabling legislation, requiring national authorities to make regulations and opening up the possibility of endless consultation and delay. That has become an issue with the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, the subject of an Oral Question earlier this week. The Minister heard the concern of noble Lords across the House about the delay in implementing it. Two years on from its reaching the statute book, we are stuck in a doom cycle of consultation and delay, highlighting the problem of enabling legislation, We also encountered problems under the last Government with the regulations concerning electronic shock collars, inexplicably delayed before the general election. Nothing has been heard of that since, and cats and dogs are still suffering needlessly. The same thing must not happen to this legislation. I ask for a commitment from the Minister to implement it with the maximum possible speed and not to allow it to become victim to the same problems that have affected other animal welfare laws. With that caveat, I strongly support this Bill and wish it well. Let us get it on to the statute book unamended as soon as possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, when I first read the Title of this Bill, I did wonder about the ferrets, but now I understand, because dogs, cats and ferrets can carry rabies and are kept as pets—although I have never kept a ferret, but, obviously, who knows about the future?
I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black, but I agreed with his closing statement about the need for speed. This is obviously an outline; it will need a lot of subsequent work from all sorts of stakeholders to make sure that it becomes binding legislation, so that it is clear that we can catch criminal gangs and put disturbed, traumatised, vulnerable animals out of their desperate straits.
I strongly support this Bill, as does the Green Party. It seeks to improve animal welfare and reduce the illegal, criminal exploitation of non-commercial pet travel rules. This Bill is apparently also known as the puppy smuggling Bill, because criminal gangs have been exploiting loopholes in the law and avoiding health and welfare checks that the UK strongly requires. This process is going to need a lot of work in future to stop all further illegal exploitation. To stop animals being imported, having experienced great cruelty and becoming very traumatised, is going to be a lot of work. I loathe the whole idea of subsequent legislation that we never get to comment on, but it is, in this case, absolutely crucial.
We know that heavily pregnant bitches are sent in cramped conditions without concern for their well-being or their future. Puppies are removed from their mothers at too young an age, transported in unsafe conditions, possibly unvaccinated, often with mutilations such as docked ears or tails, or cats are declawed. When I first read that, and even reading it now, it made me feel quite ill that we can treat animals in this way.
Having read the background to this Bill, the many emails and briefings, I thank people who have written to me to say that they have fears about the legislation. I understand those fears, and I accept that there could be problems going forward, but I am afraid that this is a Bill that has its time, and its time is now. When I read about animals in war zones that need rescuing and rehoming, I feel incredibly sad for them, but at the same time we have to be sure that here in the UK we have stringent welfare conditions for our animals. Of course, I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for its excellent briefing and strong push to support this Bill. Similar Bills have failed in the past, but we cannot afford to let this Bill not be passed and become legislation, and I look forward to co-operation on all sides of the House. How unusual to have a Bill that everybody supports. It is a real pleasure.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. His veterinarian background gives him great knowledge of and expertise in animals and animal welfare.
I declare an interest as a lover of animals and the proud owner of two dogs and a horse. The thought of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrent, as is the thought that criminal gangs can dupe new owners into buying sick pets, so I am delighted to support this Bill. Animal welfare is a cause very close to my heart; I spent nine years on the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and I am an honorary BVA associate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said, it is so good to speak on an issue where there has been so much cross-party support, both in the other place and on these Benches today. It carries on the work agreed under the last Government and the former Conservative MP for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, who led the last version of the Bill until it failed simply due to the general election. This Bill has attracted a wealth of backing from the public. I thank the Countryside Alliance, the BVA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and other organisations for all their briefings.
As we know, the British are a nation of animal lovers. Dog ownership skyrocketed during Covid. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, it has become difficult to fulfil demand in recent years as we do not have enough dog breeders in the UK. If people cannot find an animal in the UK, they look to bring one in from abroad.
As we have heard, the Bill seeks to address animal welfare criminality in the pet trade, and to protect consumers by stopping the illegal trade. Over recent years there has been much in the press, particularly about puppy smuggling and its abuses; my noble friend Lord Black spoke eloquently about the smuggling of cats as well. I gather that in 2023 around 320,000 dogs were imported under travel pet schemes. It can be a very lucrative operation; therefore, it definitely needs strict controls to clamp down on it. However, we must emphasise to the general public that it is perfectly possibly to import a puppy legally, as many people do.
A number of the pets that arrive here, having been smuggled into the UK, are in poor health or traumatised. I welcome the sensible new clause on pre-testing to avoid diseases entering the UK. At the moment, the UK is rabies-free; it is extremely important that it remains so.
The Bill also addresses loopholes around horrid mutilations that are now illegal in the UK, such as ear cropping, tail docking and cats having their claws removed. Like my noble friend Lady Sugg and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I have received many emails from people who are worried about older animals that have already had their ears cropped and have had a most terrible start in life and who want to give them a new home. Perhaps that could be addressed in the implementation of the Bill, with strong guidelines put out.
Nothing can be more heartbreaking for a family than acquiring a pet only to find that it is very unwell or that it dies young. Pets that are unsocialised from a young age, especially dogs, can also develop difficult behavioural problems or, in some cases, become dangerous. I put on the record, however, the importance of having thorough, thought-through and consulted-on secondary legislation in due course. Can the Minister tell us whether the department already has teams working in parallel on secondary legislation drafts so that they can be brought forward quickly? Like others, I emphasise that we want this Bill to pass and to be implemented so that we can stop this terrible, illegal trade.
To conclude, this Bill builds on the work of the previous Government in strengthening UK animal welfare. I wholeheartedly support it.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trees for his introduction to the Bill. I wish the House to note my registered interests. First, I have been a dog owner for many years, enjoying the benefits, both physically and mentally, of owning one for so long. I also work for, and am a shareholder in, a large independent veterinary practice, and I represent an organisation on the British Veterinary Association’s council.
I fully support this important Bill as a supporter of animal welfare. I know how critical it is that this House does its job and scrutinises the Bill, but I hope that we do not table any amendments that may change the Bill and instead make these changes via secondary legislation, as other Peers have stated. I congratulate Danny Chambers MP on bringing the Bill back to the Commons and through its stages in the other place. I also thank the Government—especially the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—for supporting the Bill.
I turn to some of the reasons why the Bill is so important. First, my noble friend Lord Trees mentioned biosecurity. We are rabies-free, and we must continue to be so. Also, the veterinary industry has seen a rise in the number of cases of the infectious disease brucellosis, which has increased due to the import of dogs. This disease is highly infectious, and pet owners and veterinary staff handling pets are at risk. At our practice, if dogs are tested and found to be infected, in most cases we would recommend euthanasia, which is an awful outcome and is distressing for both the pet—obviously—and its owners.
Hundreds of thousands of dogs, cats and ferrets are imported illegally into this country in poor conditions. They suffer long journeys when very young or when heavily pregnant, which is not good and awfully cruel. We also need to close the loophole that allows the cruel, illegal mutilation of dogs’ ears, tail docking and the declawing of cats by uncaring, fashion-obsessed pet owners who claim that these pets are imported. We need to improve the protections for the pet-owning, pet-purchasing public so that they can buy pets that have had reasonable upbringings.
I have questions and concerns, many of which were addressed in Wednesday’s briefing; I thank my noble friend Lord Trees and the Minister for attending. Enforcement is an area on which we will need to continue to focus once this Bill has been passed into law—quickly, I hope—with regard not only to the import of pets but to animal welfare in general and to biosecurity at ports and the control of animal diseases. Can the Minister find time in her busy schedule to keep enforcement on the agenda and to support Border Force staff and local authorities in enforcing the protective laws that we have in place?
I turn to access to the country via Northern Ireland and its relationship with the Republic of Ireland under the Windsor Framework. There is a possibility that criminal gangs can use this route to import pets in larger numbers. I heard what was said at the briefing, but I ask the Government to continue to keep a close eye on the number of pets crossing the Irish Sea, to continue working closely with the EU on illegal pet movement and to make sure that Northern Ireland does not become a route and a loophole.
I am sure that other noble Lords have, like me, been contacted by dedicated, caring and loving people who rescue abandoned or mutilated dogs in Europe and bring them back to this country for care and loving homes. The majority of these cases are genuine, but criminal gangs do use this to bring dogs into this country; we need to close this loophole. I ask the Minister, in summing up, to reassure those good-hearted individuals that we will look at how we can possibly accommodate the rehoming of these unwanted and mutilated pets through secondary legislation or via commercial importing routes. We have to pass this Bill to protect both the large number of pets that are cruelly transported to this country and the pet-owning community in this country.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring the Bill. I welcome this latest iteration and the Government’s support for it. It is only right that we on these Benches acknowledge that we initially introduced it but failed to bring it to fruition. Because it has taken us so long to get to this point, there is definitely a feeling of, “Let’s just get this done”. In that spirit, I will make only a couple of points; they were made way back when but are, I think, worth mentioning again now.
As others have mentioned, it is good news that the change in the non-commercial pet travel rules will reduce the number of animals that can be brought into the country from five per person to five per vehicle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I would be interested to know how that figure was reached. Perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking in her response.
The Dogs Trust national dogs survey in 2021, based on responses from over 240,000 owners, estimated that 97.7% of them had three dogs or fewer. Despite the drastic reduction, five still seems a generous, and potentially even unnecessary, figure, given that those two animals could provide a decent profit incentive for the many smugglers who exploit this route. Like any black market industry, people will choose the method with the greatest margin at the lowest risk. Therefore, frustrating as enabling powers can be, I am pleased to see one in the Bill allowing for penalties to be looked at through regulations. We all know that you get a tougher sentence for smuggling cigarettes than for smuggling puppies.
The second point relates to the importing of pregnant dogs. In recent years there has been a change in approach as people have realised that smuggling a pregnant dog is a better way to reduce risk and maximise profits, given that the average litter is five to six puppies and with larger breeds having litters of up to 12. Since 2019, the Dogs Trust has taken in 177 pregnant dogs, which demonstrates the escalating nature of the trade. I should declare an interest, as one of those dogs gave birth to my own dog, a charcoal labrador called Tess.
I am pleased to say that Tess now lives an utterly indulged and very happy life, but it has not been so easy for her mother. The professionals at the Dogs Trust believe that, despite her young age, when she came to them from Hungary she was on her second or third litter. She was in a bad way physically and mentally. She was too frightened to go outside for many months and was completely unsocialised. We cannot ever know the exact conditions in which she was kept, but the assumption is that she was locked up or chained up inside for most of her life. It is also possible that she was transported to the UK to give birth, transported back to Hungary to become pregnant again, transported back to the UK and so on. It is a vile merry-go-round, which charities say is on the increase.
It is good that the Bill will prohibit the import of dogs more than 42 days pregnant, but would a complete ban on the commercial movement of pregnant dogs into the UK be more effective? Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the Dogs Trust, a fantastic organisation, I am pleased to say that it succeeded in rehoming Tess’s mother, but it was touch and go and she paid a terrible price in terms of her health and welfare. I am not sure of the circumstances in which it could be deemed necessary to move a pregnant dog for commercial reasons but perhaps the Minister can explain further. I know that she is genuinely committed to animal welfare, personally and in her position in government.
On both my points, the Bill still provides a significant improvement on the current situation. I am with the majority who say, “Let’s just get this done, and get it done unamended”.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill wholeheartedly and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on introducing this excellent legislation to this House. On many occasions, this subject has been raised in Private Members’ Bills. I hope that this time we will get it through.
This is about raising concerns on the legal and illegal puppy trade, the age at and distressing conditions in which animals are transported, and the very real threat of dog-to-dog and dog-to-human disease. The current rules remain worryingly vulnerable to abuse. Puppies and kittens are still being imported far too young, legally and illegally, often in appalling conditions and too often with falsified or unsatisfactory health documentation. These animals and their parents continue to suffer greatly, and the unsuspecting families who purchase them are left heartbroken when the animals fall ill or die prematurely. The Bill seeks to tackle those harms by restricting the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age, by prohibiting the importation of heavily pregnant animals and by clamping down on the cruel practice of cropping dogs’ ears or docking their tails abroad only to sell them here, as mentioned by many noble Lords.
The Bill also closes loopholes in the pet travel scheme which have been exploited by unscrupulous traders masquerading as private owners. I also wish to raise awareness of the new documentary, “Dogspiracy”, which highlights commercial dog breeding in the USA and follows Dr Marc Abraham OBE, an English vet, as he seeks to stop the cruel puppy mill industry, end puppy smuggling and ban US pet stores from selling puppies. Marc is the founder of the successful “Lucy’s law” campaign to ban third-party commercial puppy dealing, thus making all breeders accountable, and he provides the secretariat for the All-Party Dog Advisory Welfare Group, of which I am proud to be an officer.
The Bill is not just about protecting animals but protecting the public. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, rabies, brucellosis, tapeworm and several other serious diseases remain ever-present risks. By strengthening import rules and improving enforcement, the Bill reduces the chance of devastating outbreaks, thereby safeguarding human health and the health of our domestic pet population.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, mentioned the movement of young puppies from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Under the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland continues to follow elements of EU law on pet travel. That creates a serious loophole. The 2019 amendment to the 2018 regulations permits breeders to sell puppies under a pet sales licence, rather than a breeder’s licence, if the dog was bred overseas. This enables breeding to take place in facilities that can evade scrutiny and provide no guarantee of meeting English licensing standards. Therefore, young puppies bred in large numbers in Northern Ireland can be legally moved into Great Britain and sold legally in pet shops without having been seen with their mother.
The 2019 regulations mean that there are now two distinct sets of standards for puppies sold in England, depending on whether they are bred here or abroad. Under the former, strict scrutiny of the breeding premises is required and the puppy can be sold only from the place of birth and in the presence of the mother—Lucy’s law. Under the latter, these important protections are absent, with all the potential for negative consequences on puppy welfare and socialisation and on human and puppy health. This loophole needs closing as soon as possible.
In closing, can the Minister tell the House how the Bill will interact with the Windsor Framework? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the route from Northern Ireland to Great Britain does not remain a weak link in our efforts to curb the inappropriate legal and cruel illegal puppy trade?
I should finally give mention to Jeanie, a rescue Scottish terrier who died recently, sadly. As other noble Lords have said, when people get pets they must look at taking a rescue dog as an option—a very good option.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my Liberal Democrat colleague and vet, the honourable Dr Danny Chambers, MP for Winchester, on tabling this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, his veterinary teacher, for sponsoring it in the Lords, and the Minister for working with them both to make this a Bill backed by the Government. The Bill represents a vital step forward in tackling the deplorable practices of puppy smuggling and the cruel importation of mutilated and severely stressed animals.
The veterinary profession, including Dr Danny Chambers, has been campaigning on this issue for over 10 years, so it is great that he has been able to deliver this much needed change in the law just one year after becoming an Member of Parliament. Danny Chambers continues the Liberal Democrats’ track record of animal rights advocacy, including improving standards of animal welfare in agriculture and ensuring the protection of funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit. It was Liberal Democrats who ended the practice of housing chickens in battery cages during the coalition Government. We continue to strongly believe that we should be ending live exports of all animals. The Bill is an important step towards those wider goals.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches, like the other parties, are united in asking that no changes be made to the Bill within the House of Lords so that this legislation can be passed as quickly as possible That is because dogs and cats—and ferrets—cannot wait any longer. The scale of the problem is alarming. The current system has proven vulnerable, with commercial imports frequently disguised as non-commercial movements to deliberately bypass more stringent requirements. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that, in 2022, the import of pet dogs into the UK had gone up by 43% since 2020.
I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for its detailed briefing in support of this Bill—and for our own, much-loved rescue cat. The story from Battersea of Milo the Dobermann puppy is enough to break any heart. He was born in the UK but, using the current loophole that this Bill sets out to fix, his ears were cropped using cotton thread, not surgical thread, and his tail was docked—all illegal in this country but done here because the protections are not strong enough. He came to Battersea at six months and, following surgery and support, I am delighted to report that he now lives with a loving family and his older Dobermann mentor. People can get away with this and claim that Milo came from abroad; therefore, this barbarism can been meted out to dogs like Milo here in England—likewise for the horrific declawing of cats that we have heard about.
The Bill also addresses several critical issues that have long concerned animal welfare advocates. It seeks to raise the minimum age for imported dogs and cats from 15 weeks to six months. This ensures that young animals are not separated from their mothers too early, allowing them to develop adequately before undergoing potentially long and stressful journeys that can have a lasting impact on their temperament and health.
These measures, and others already described by many Peers, are essential not only for animal welfare but for human public health, as they reduce the risk of importing diseases such as rabies.
The Bill has widespread cross-party support, evidenced by today’s debate, and has been warmly welcomed by leading animal welfare organisations. The RSPCA has explicitly supported the proposals. The British Veterinary Association sees the Bill as a vital tool to end puppy smuggling. Dogs Trust, which was also mentioned, a charity that has campaigned against puppy smuggling for over a decade, is “delighted” that the Bill will finally address this “cruel trade”.
Some have raised the issue of the numbers—five pets per vehicle—feeling that it is arbitrary in some way. However, I thank Danny Chambers, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the Minister for the extremely useful meeting earlier this week and the clear explanation of support for this number from animal welfare organisations and the EFRA Select Committee, and the need identified by those in the disability sector. I also thank the Minister for her explanation that further regulations will be able to reduce that number in the future if it is deemed necessary.
I urge all noble Lords to support this vital legislation. It is a testament to what can be achieved when Parliament works as a united team. I thank Dr Danny Chambers MP again for his initiative and unwavering commitment to animal welfare. He is a recent and superb addition to this Parliament. The Bill is a beacon of progress on animal welfare, and I wish it a speedy legislative journey.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in view of the importance placed on controlling rabies in the Bill, I need to tell the House about a campaign run by me and my noble friend Lord Deben when we were Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1990. I was tempted to wear our campaign T-shirt for the whole of this debate—it says, “Rabies: bringing it in is madness”—but I thought it may not be for the decorum of the House if I were to do so. I do not have any spare ones for sale. It proves the point that, if you hang on to something for 30 years, it may have relevance again one day.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on taking through this very important Bill. He has my full support and that of the Official Opposition. It is long overdue, and we all look forward to it being on the statute book. Animal smugglers are despicable people, since they are making money from animal cruelty and doing it over and again. Personally, I would add cropping of their ears to the penalties in the Bill, but I suspect that the Sentencing Council would not approve of that.
The figures showing that, in 2023, 500 cases of illegal cat and dog imports were intercepted at Dover are appalling. That is just one port out of many where port health spotted the activities. It is just the tip of a very large iceberg of animal cruelty as racketeers make money from this inhumane trade.
What does non-commercial mean? It is people like you and I, ordinary animal lovers, bringing in a cat or dog we have seen abroad and adopted. They want it as part of their household, not to sell on. That is usually a one-off—not a weekly occurrence, as we now see, with cars and vans stuffed full of animals, possibly with five people bringing in 25 cats and dogs at any one time.
Reducing the number to five per vehicle is right, and, as other noble Lords have said, I would personally have gone further and reduced it to three for vehicles and one for aircraft. Why would any individual or non-commercial owner want to bring in five cats or dogs at any one time?
That is bad enough for fit and healthy animals, but this vile trade is now bringing in heavily pregnant cats and dogs and very young puppies and kittens. Not content with that cruelty, they are also bringing in dogs with their ears cropped and cats with their claws ripped out. Therefore, I warmly support the restrictions on bringing in pregnant cats and dogs which are more than 42 days pregnant, and puppies and kittens which are younger than six months. That is wise and right.
People who care about pet cats and dogs want to accompany them in transit if at all possible and not to bung them in a hold. I therefore like the idea of animals being accompanied by the owner. If I had a free hand—it is probably fortunate that I do not—I would not have permitted the exemptions in the rest of proposed new Article 5A.
On mutilations, I am in complete support of the provisions. I can see some veterinary merit in shortening the tails of working dogs by qualified vets when the puppies are very young, since long bushy tails in Spaniels can get tangled in gorse and brambles when they are working. However, there is no veterinary nor medical justification for cropping of dogs’ ears. It is a disgusting fashion fad which needs to be outlawed everywhere. Therefore, bans on bringing in dogs with cropped ears are essential.
I sympathise with those caring animal welfare groups who rescue damaged and mutilated animals from Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, but the disease risks are great, and each animal needs to be thoroughly checked out. Also, bringing in rescue dogs with cropped ears gives the impression to the rest of the people in the UK that it is a perfectly okay practice, and it is not.
I press the Government to go further on ear cropping. We dare not amend the Bill, since it might not get through, but we need a ban on selling ear-cropping equipment in this country. I could not believe it when my honourable friend Dr Neil Hudson MP said in the other place that one could still buy that kit in this country even though cropping is illegal. So, two days ago, I did a Google search to buy dog ear-cropping kit. There are dozens of sets for sale in this country—legally. You can get “Ear Cropping Guide Clamp with Teeth Pitbull Dog Ear Cropping Tools” from AliExpress for just £29.99 and “Terrier Ear Cropping Trimming Clamps Set” on eBay for £130.25. They all have coloured photographs showing these things: there are two blades, six inches long, with serrated teeth and thumbscrews at the end; you stick the dog’s ears in between, you tighten the thumbscrews, and the serrated teeth cut the ears off. I make no apology for that sickening description, because people should be aware of what these things are and the suffering they cause for no good reason.
Then we come to ripping out the claws of cats. Why in the name of God would anyone do that? Removing the ability of a cat to use a scratching post is like trying to remove their purring ability. It is an important part of the cat’s personality. If people do not want a cat to scratch their sofa, then they should buy those excellent scratching posts with the sisal cords on them—or do not buy a cat in the first place if you do not like its natural behaviour.
Again, we do not have the time to propose an amendment to the definition of mutilation in Clause 1(9), but it does not go far enough in my personal opinion—indeed, it would probably be for another Bill—but, at some point, we have to tackle the other cruelty of breeders deliberately breeding dogs with genetic defects knowing full well that the progeny will suffer those defects as well. I raise this issue here; it is not relevant to the Bill, but I cannot see any other opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future.
The prime example is the Shar Pei dog, where some breeders let them have litters in the full knowledge that the puppies, when older, will have ingrowing eyelashes, which is called entropion. A study by the Royal Veterinary College in London showed that 18% of Shar Pei have ingrowing eyelashes. Can noble Lords imagine how painful that must be? The Shar Pei breed has very wrinkled skin, and 16% of them suffer ear infections because their skin covers their ears.
Unscrupulous breeders are also deliberately breeding dogs with hip dysplasia, especially retrievers, causing arthritis in the hip joints, pain and suffering. Cavalier King Charles spaniels and dachshunds are at risk of heart valve disease. Boxers and bulldogs suffer irregular heartbeats and sudden death. One of the new growing problems is brachycephalic syndrome—the fad for dogs with flattened faces, meaning the poor things cannot breathe. That mainly affects bulldogs, Boston terriers, pugs, Pekingese, Shih Tzus, and Cavalier King Charles spaniels.
Animal welfare must not suffer because fatuous and inconsequential actresses want a cute little designer dog to fit into their Gucci handbag. That goes for equally bubble-headed male actors as well. The point here is not that I am seeking to stop animals ever contracting assorted diseases that happen in nature but to stop breeders deliberately breeding animals that they know from the bloodstock will inevitably have those cruel and debilitating diseases.
As I said, those issues are not for this Bill, but I appeal to the Government to take action on them. Will the Minister ask her Chief Veterinary Officer for a report on genetic defects in dogs, and then perhaps call a meeting with her officials, the BVA and the Royal Veterinary College to see what can be done to stamp out the deliberate breeding of dogs that will suffer cruel defects in later life? It is apparently illegal at the moment to do it, but it is happening time and again. It is happening deliberately, and it ought to be stopped. If some breeders are breeding animals that they know will suffer horrendous and painful health problems, that is about as evil as declawing and ear cropping.
Finally, I turn back to the Bill and enforcement. Inevitably, because of the inadequacies of the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework—our friends in Northern Ireland will not get the benefit of the Bill. So, not only will the animal welfare of cats and dogs in Northern Ireland continue to suffer but there could be a big loophole, as other Peers have commented. What is to stop the smuggler crooks bringing the animals into Northern Ireland and then funnelling them into Great Britain? I understand that Northern Ireland may have the power to change the 2025 importing of cats and dogs rules as well. If they do, I hope it will be used in due course.
Can I have an assurance from the Minister that there will be increased surveillance at all ports of entry into the UK to enforce the five pets per vehicle requirement, and extra vigilance to ensure that excessive numbers of cats, dogs and ferrets imported into Northern Ireland are not then exported to Scotland, England and Wales if the EU rules do not change, as they might do?
This is an excellent little Bill. Despite its small size, it will make a huge difference in reducing the cruelty that cats, dogs and ferrets currently suffer through the despicable animal pet smuggling trade. I am grateful to have the opportunity to rant about tackling the cruelty of breeding animals with known genetic defects. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trees, can take through a Bill to tighten up on that in the next Session of Parliament.
If we had ample parliamentary time, I would have tabled a few amendments, but I repeat what others have said: if we seek to amend the Bill, it may not get through Parliament in time. Yes, we might be able to conclude it here, but they will not have the time in the other place to deal with Commons consideration of Lords amendments. With those words, the Bill is too important to fall or fail, and I commend it to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers, as others have, for introducing this important Bill in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring it in this House. I know as well as everyone here that the noble Lord is a great advocate for animal welfare, and he has followed discussions on the Bill very closely.
The UK is a world leader in animal welfare and has a long history of promoting high animal welfare standards. Many across the House will agree that pets are important members of the family. The noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned my lovely cat, Sid. I also have a now rather elderly chocolate Labrador called Max. They are very important members of our household.
The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and low-welfare imports of pets seriously. That is why we committed in our manifesto to bringing an end to this cruel trade, which causes unnecessary suffering to animals, in the pursuit of profit. This is a popular and important policy right across the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the organisations that support and have been pressing for this legislation over a number of years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined, the importance of this legislation is that it looks to stop, for example, the exploitation of loopholes in our pet travel rules by unscrupulous traders. Crucially, the Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement under the pet travel rules. That limit, as we have heard, will change from five pets per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. This means that non-compliant traders will not be able to evade the more stringent measures that apply to commercial imports by claiming that that the vehicles full of puppies are carrying their pets.
To clarify, and to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, where the purpose of a movement of a pet relates to the sale or transfer of ownership of the animal, the commercial importation rules should be used. But I am aware that some people, and many in the House today, have called for the measures to go a step further to reduce the limit to three per vehicle. We looked at this very carefully and had long discussions with Danny Chambers MP about it. One of the reasons for that decision was to not create unintended consequences for assistance dog users. There were concerns that that could negatively impact on their travel. But I can confirm for the noble Baroness that the Bill does give us the power to reduce the limit further, should there be evidence that the pet travel rules continue to be abused, and we will be keeping a very close eye on that.
The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain is explicitly linked to the movement of its owner. The amendments made by the Bill require that, in order to move under the pet travel rules, the pet and the owner will have to travel within five days of each other.
I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Black, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, about the disease brucella canis. I can clarify that we take biosecurity very seriously. Disease risk is monitored carefully and kept under constant review. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce, where necessary, preventive health measures to control diseases that are likely to be spread due to the movement of pet animals into Great Britain.
I now turn to some of the exemptions that were discussed. Crucially, the measures will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to abuse the non-commercial pet travel rules. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned in his introduction, to ensure that the new measures do not disproportionately affect protected groups such as assistance dog users, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill will give the appropriate authority discretion to effectively exempt owners from these measures if needed. I want to reassure the House that these measures—this discretion—will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and the process for exercising the discretion will be tightly controlled to prevent misuse.
We do not want this to become a back door for illicit activity or to undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve. By incorporating this discretion, the Bill offers the flexibility needed to support responsible pet owners who could be affected by unforeseen events— something they did not know about in advance, such as a medical emergency or natural disaster that would affect travel plans—and provides reassurance to individuals relying on assistance dogs. As I said, we have the option to review the Bill going forward to make sure that no one is negatively impacted, particularly if we see that it is being abused. But every case will have to be judged on its individual merits. We will work in partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a clear and robust framework for the handling of exemption requests, ensuring that the discretion is exercised only when truly justified.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Sanderson, asked about exemptions to the prohibitions and restrictions that will be introduced within the Bill’s enabling powers. The main enabling powers allow exemptions to come through secondary legislation. We are going to continue to engage with stakeholders as the regulations are developed to make sure that we know that the introduction of exemptions is appropriate.
I am aware of the emails about the rescue and rehoming concerns about mutilated animals still being able to be brought in from abroad. We need to ensure that any pets that come into Great Britain for rescue or rehoming are moved in compliance with the stringent commercial import regime. We have to protect the biosecurity of our country and animal welfare during transport, and we know that bringing a dog from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We recommend that any prospective owners ensure testing for diseases, including Brucella canis, and that that is carried out before movement takes place. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce extra measures, as I said. The main thing is that any changes that we might make in future to the Bill do not open up loopholes. We do not want loopholes that undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.
On the regulation-making powers in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly highlighted that the Government will first use these powers to raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain to six months. We will also restrict the movement of heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain.
I confirm to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that ear-cropping legislation applies to both commercial and non-commercial movements. In the other place, there was clear and vocal support at Third Reading to close the loophole that allows individuals to claim that mutilated dogs have been imported when in fact the animals have been illegally subjected to cruel procedures here. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the fact that he can buy dog ear-cropping kits in this country on online, which is really shocking. To reassure him, it is an offence in England and Wales under the Animal Welfare Act to carry out a non-exempted mutilation, including the use of DIY cropping kits. Anyone convicted of illegally cropping a dog’s ear may be imprisoned for a term of up to five years, receive an unlimited fine or both. Those convicted of an offence may also be disqualified from owning or keeping animals. At the moment, the Government are focusing our efforts on delivering the crucial measures in this Bill, but doing so will also help us to do more to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and make it easier for us to police the existing offence in England and Wales, as future offenders will be unable to claim that the mutilation was undertaken abroad.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked about limiting the movement of pregnant dogs after 42 days’ gestation. The reason for this is that physical signs of pregnancy can be seen from 42 days’ gestation. These signs can be used during identity and visual checks at the border accurately to identify pregnant dogs and cats in the limit. That is why we cannot enforce a total ban on importing pregnant dogs. I spoke to enforcement officers about this, and they felt that this is the right approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about people who deliberately breed dogs with genetic defects, which is just appalling. We are considering a range of evidence, including the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on canine breeding and the findings from our post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations. Under the LAIA regulations, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs or who breeds three or more litters in a 12-month period must have a valid licence from their local authority. Licensed dog breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can reasonably be expected on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health that this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies. Elsewhere, we support the work of the UK Brachycephalic Working Group, which works towards a world where no dog experiences health-related welfare problems as a result of being selectively bred. We also support the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, whose work helps online sales platforms to identify and remove illegal and unethical adverts, and we will continue to do further work on this.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding the exemptions to these prohibitions. Delivering these measures via secondary legislation allows us to gather further evidence and discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. It is important that any new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively without any unintended consequences. Any exemptions have to be appropriate. The department has already started discussions with the Kennel Club and Assistance Dogs International because, if there are going to be exemptions, we need to have proper information and evidence that they are the right way to go forward. As I said before, if anything is brought in as an exemption, we have to be confident that it is not going to create an unacceptable loophole.
The eagle-eyed will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial measures. This is because very low volumes of ferrets are brought into Great Britain. Unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in or low-welfare movement of ferrets at this time. However, if that changes, we will be able to continue to protect ferrets’ welfare in the future.
A number of noble Lords asked about enforcement. Any new legislation is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Therefore, we are working closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the guidance and tools to enforce these measures effectively. The Bill also introduces new powers to make regulations to provide authorities with additional enforcement powers when they are presented with a non-compliant pet.
I shall answer a few specific questions. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are going to be responsible for enforcing any new pet travel and commercial import requirements, and the Bill will make regulations to give them a clear process to do so. We anticipate limited additional impact on enforcement authorities, but we will continue to work with them to assess funding and resource impacts. In fact, much of what is in this Bill will make their job more straightforward with better outcomes.
We are looking at how to develop guidance so that enforcement bodies have the correct tools they need to deliver these measures. There are powers in the Bill to introduce measures to support and strengthen the current enforcement mechanisms. For example, this could be in relation to the detention and seizure of non-compliant dogs and cats and the costs associated with that seizure and detention, the rehoming of abandoned animals and any financial penalties. In response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester, I should say that the Bill creates the power to make regulations about detention and seizure because they are necessary to ensure that we get effective enforcement. As I said, what is the point if we if we do not have effective enforcement? Delivering those measures through secondary legislation means that we can develop those proposals with the enforcement bodies to make sure they are effective, efficient and proportionate.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about Northern Ireland. EU regulations relevant to pet travel apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Windsor Framework, as the noble Lord said. Therefore, the changes that the Bill makes to the maximum number of permitted single non-commercial consignments do not apply to Northern Ireland. The enabling powers in the Bill allow DAERA to introduce regulations restricting the bringing into Northern Ireland of dogs, cats and ferrets on welfare grounds, as appropriate. Officials and enforcement agencies across all four nations will continue to work together closely to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and safeguard the welfare of animals. That should make a difference, particularly as DAERA is currently consulting on some proposals. If those proposals are implemented, it would mean that anyone who sells puppies would need to be registered with their local council and registered individuals would not be able to sell, give away or otherwise transfer the ownership of the puppies that are unweaned, weaned at an age when they should not have been weaned or aged under eight weeks old. This, paired with the fact that third-party sales and sales below eight weeks of age are already banned across the rest of GB means that the issue can be tackled by separate legislation.
Having talked about Northern Ireland, I will say a few words on territorial consent. We have had legislative consent from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government as their legislative consent process continues to progress. They do support the Bill; it is just a matter of it going through their parliament.
Changes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme, including the revised cap on the maximum number that may enter GB in a single non-commercial movement, and the requirement that the journey should take place within five days of the owners’ travels will apply in England, Wales and Scotland—I confirm that. The regulatory powers will extend across all four nations of the United Kingdom, although the duty to enact the three prohibitions the first time the power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply to domestic travel; this is really important. The Bill does not apply to the domestic travel of dogs, cats and ferrets, including movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those journeys will not be affected by this legislation.
As I said at the beginning, we made a manifesto commitment to put an end to the cruel puppy-smuggling trade. I am delighted that the Government are supporting this Bill so that we can get to work on this. I have backed previously failed versions of this legislation, so I am delighted to be here representing the Government supporting a Bill that we expect to get onto the statute book. Regarding timings, we are serious about this as it was a manifesto commitment, so we will bring in the measures needed as soon as is practically possible. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for taking this important Bill through the House today and I look forward to us all working together as the Bill progresses.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this fairly short but extremely entertaining and good debate about this Bill. There have been some excellent contributions. The passion and enthusiasm for improving animal welfare is a wonderful thing and a great credit to the House.
In my introduction, I acknowledged the contribution of Danny Chambers, which has been amplified, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I also thank another Member in the other place: Dr Neil Hudson, a veterinary surgeon as well as MP for Epping Forest. He has his hands rather full at the minute, but he has been a constant and great supporter of this Bill and animal welfare in general. I also thank the Bill team, led by Hayley Atkin, who is sitting in the Box, and my own veterinary researcher Fiona Shuttleworth, for all their hard work in preparing the work to help the passage of the Bill through this House. I of course also acknowledge the terrific support of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
I emphasise three take-home messages, although there were a lot more, which will no doubt come up in subsequent discussions. We must try to get this Bill through. We do not want to delay it; if it has to go back to the Commons, it will surely die. There will be ample opportunity to discuss many of the issues in the development and tabling of secondary legislation. That is the second big message: please, can we get to the secondary legislation as soon as possible? Thirdly, when—I hope—the Bill is passed, enforcement will be critical. In fact, the Minister has emphasised that, and I know that she is very well aware of the urgency of moving to secondary legislation as soon as we can to get that in place.
This not the end but I hope that, as someone once said, it is the beginning of the end of this particular Bill. If anybody wants to discuss issues informally in the future, I hope they will please contact me. My door is always open; I am very happy to discuss the issues as we move towards secondary legislation. I beg to move.