Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.