Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.