Animal Rescue Centres

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

18:00

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 718660 relating to the licensing and regulation of animal rescue centres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the petitioner Paul Watkinson and his colleague Niki Roe for their hard work in gathering almost 110,000 signatures for this petition, which is a fantastic achievement. The petition, which is entitled “Introduce Licensing and Regulation for Dog and Cat Rescues to Protect Welfare”, states:

“Many UK animal rescues operate without clear legal oversight, creating opportunities for unethical practices. Some rescues have been linked to supporting irresponsible breeding, neglecting animals, or misusing public donations.

Without enforceable standards, there is a risk that animals suffer in poor conditions, and public trust is undermined. We call on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and regular inspections to ensure rescues operate transparently and uphold high welfare standards. Regulation is essential to prevent cruelty, improve accountability, and ensure all rescued animals receive proper care.

By introducing clear legal requirements, the Government can safeguard animal welfare, protect public confidence in rescues, and prevent organizations from operating irresponsibly.”

However, it is important to acknowledge that most animal rescues do great work.

Many activities associated with animals must already be licensed under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, including selling pets, providing boarding for cats and dogs, hiring out horses, dog breeding and keeping or training animals for exhibition. It is clearly not unusual for animal activities to be licensed, so the petitioner and many others believe that rescue and rehoming centres should be the next step.

In England, there is currently no statutory code for rescue centres; there are only voluntary frameworks. They include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals code of practice for animal welfare establishments and the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes standards, to which the Government’s response refers. However, Scotland has already introduced a licensing system for dog and cat rescues under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. Similarly, Wales has had a code of practice for animal welfare establishments since 2020. Its consultation on licensing animal welfare establishments found that 82% of respondents were in favour of licensing; the Welsh Government announced in June 2025 that they would prioritise taking forth the proposals of the consultation. England now has a great opportunity to join the rest of Great Britain and catch up with licensing these organisations.

There are many establishments that are not meeting standards but have good intentions. Well-meaning individuals can find themselves out of their depth and have no structure or training to know what is best. Once organisations are known to be local rescues, they can be inundated with animals left on their doorstep. A lack of knowledge and training is putting animals at risk, along with staff exhausted by malpractice and people who choose to adopt from the rescue. It is important for the law to draw a distinction between being a cat lady and being an unofficial rescue that is overcrowded with animals. Unfortunately, there are also cases of people running rescue homes with financial and malicious motivations. The worst scenarios include very dangerous practices, including rogue traders masquerading to the public as something they are not.

Nobody wants to close small organisations, so it is important that smaller dog and cat rescues be supported through a transition and that cats and dogs be moved to other rescues where it is completely necessary. Rescuers should have the opportunity to move through legislation and structure and be supported with grants, for example from the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. Work is already going on between small organisations and the bigger charities: larger groups can advise and support the smaller organisations. That would continue as we transitioned to a licensing model.

Under the current laws, anyone can set up a rescue. I think we would all agree that is not acceptable. The fact that there are no standards or training can lead to the illegal import of animals, the outbreak of disease and poor hygiene standards. Without regulation, those dangerous practices will only continue. Nor have we any data on how widespread they may be, as without legislation there is no formal tracking of dog and cat rescue homes across the country.

We know that the current system is not working, as we know of many sorry cases in which it has failed. When I met staff from the Blue Cross, they told me about the many animals that they had found being kept in inappropriate circumstances for long periods. For example, one dog had lived in a blank kennel for eight years with no kind of enrichment. The rescue thought that the dog was simply sedate, but really he had just given up on life. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is not sufficient: it keeps an animal alive, with a safe environment, diet and housing, but it does not address the specific issues that arise in rescue shelters, such as the spread of disease.

Dog and cat rescues should ensure that pets are safe and suitable to go back into the public domain, and that they have a good quality of life over long periods. The Animal Welfare Act states that local authorities

“may prosecute proceedings for any offence under this Act”,

But that relies on individuals whistleblowing on offending organisations. That can allow suffering to carry on far too long.

There are already many examples on which legislation could be based—Scotland’s legislation, the Welsh code of practice, the RSPCA standards and the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes standards. The foundations are already there. The sector is aligned on the need for action, as I am sure the upcoming consultation will show.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank the 145 signatories to the petition from Bournemouth East; I also thank Staffie and Stray Rescue, Waggy Tails Rescue Dorset and Margaret Green Animal Rescue, alongside Cats Protection and the RSPCA, for all that they do in my constituency. My hon. Friend mentions the Government’s recently announced plan to consult on the issue. Does she agree that we need a publicly accessible national database of animal welfare establishments? That is the only way in which the rescue and rehoming centres that ensure that abandoned or lost animals have a safe place and a second chance can truly be supported.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree that that would be a good step forward. It is also important to strike an appropriate balance when setting regulations. If regulations are too exacting, people may begin to shop rather than adopt, possibly importing from abroad. Another common issue is that dog and cat homes often end up taking in other species—so-called exotic pets or wild animals, for example—that they may not be qualified to take in. In future, it may be worth looking at regulating all forms of animal rescue centre to prevent the abuse of all species. The enforcement of any future animal welfare legislation is key, because otherwise new licensing will not be effective. It is important that the local authorities that will inspect the organisations be upskilled and capable of dealing with new, rigorous systems.

Although the petition closed in October 2025, the Government responded in July 2025, advising that all animal rescue organisations have to meet existing protections under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that individuals contact the local authority if an organisation is not meeting them. Their response also advised that members of the public can check whether a rescue centre is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, which has standards for rehoming, neutering and training, among many other matters.

It is important to consider that the Government’s new animal welfare strategy, which was launched in December 2025, addresses the topic of dog and cat rescues. I am happy to see the actions outlined in the strategy, including the commitment to launch a consultation on licensing rescue and rehoming organisations and developing the evidence base on welfare issues.

Rescue animals are some of the most vulnerable animals. It is important that as lawmakers we do our best to fully protect them. Being a registered rescue should not be voluntary, and the Government are right to take steps to address the issue. It is important that when we set goals such as these, we have a clear road map. I look forward to the Minister’s response and am keen to hear the timelines associated with the consultation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye, and that if they wish to be called to speak they must have been present at the start of the debate. It may help Members and those viewing the proceedings to know that I shall call the Front-Bench spokespeople by 7 pm. Not many people are in for this debate, so I am sure that all the points that Members want to make can be explored.

18:09

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank everybody involved with the petition, whether they put their name to it or got it off the ground.

Just outside my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock, there was an incident in which the remains of 37 dogs were found, along with 20 other living dogs, in varying states of ill health. It should go without saying that this was a deeply distressing incident locally and for everyone who became aware of it. Rightly, it shocked residents, generated significant local concern and led to more than 1,000 of my constituents signing this petition. Animals suffered, and that must never be minimised.

What troubled many people locally was not simply what happened, but the response. Basildon council confirmed to my office that no licensing breaches had occurred—not because conditions were acceptable, but because animal rescue and rehoming centres do not currently require any licensing at all. That immediately raises a serious question: was this a failure of the law, or a failure of the use of laws that already exist?

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, there is already a clear legal duty on any person responsible for animals to ensure their welfare, including through proper care, a suitable environment, protection from suffering and timely veterinary treatment. The Act provides powers for enforcement, improvement notices and prosecution where standards fall short. Local authorities also retain powers on environmental health and on statutory nuisance and partnerships with police and animal welfare bodies, where conditions pose a risk to animals or the public.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990, the public health Acts, the Housing Act 2004—if the animal welfare unit is a domestic premises—and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are all additional existing laws that are in effect and which could be used in scenarios in which we believe that animals are being mistreated. Yet, in this case, concerns were reportedly raised months before any meaningful action was taken. That points not just to a legislative gap, but to questions around resources, clarity of responsibility and enforcement confidence.

I am instinctively cautious about expanding licensing regimes. The animal rescue sector is overwhelmingly run by people motivated by compassion, often operating on shoestring budgets and good will alone. Heavy-handed regulation risks driving good actors out of the sector, reducing rehoming capacity and ultimately harming the very animals that we seek to protect. That is why the right starting point is to ask, “Are existing powers under the Animal Welfare Act being used consistently? Do councils have sufficient clarity and resources to act early? Are we confident that additional regulation would prevent harm rather than simply adding bureaucracy?”

I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on the issue. I urge that the consultation focus as much on enforcement effectiveness and unintended consequences as on new statutory schemes. Regulation alone is not a guarantee of better outcomes if it is not properly resourced or proportionate. We must be careful not to do more harm than good, particularly in a sector that depends on trust, volunteerism and public confidence. Animal welfare matters deeply to my constituents—that is evident from the 1,000 people in my constituency who put their names to the petition—but so does getting this right. I genuinely want to strike that balance, and that is why I put this speech together in the way I did. I thank everyone for hearing these words.

18:13

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate. I was privileged recently to meet the lead petitioners—Paul Watkinson and Niki Roe of Jack’s Giant Journey, who are in the Public Gallery today—to discuss the issues that dog rescue centres face. I also thank the 175 constituents from Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition.

Although animal welfare is a devolved issue, Scotland is currently the only constituent nation of the UK in which animal rescues and shelters are licensed. There is much to be learned from that experience as Welsh and UK Government Ministers develop proposals for licensing regimes in Wales and England respectively.

I greatly welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s commitments to introduce regulations for animal rescues, sanctuaries and rehoming centres, following clear support in consultation in 2024. The measures will go a long way toward protecting animals and ensuring effective minimum standards for those sadly much-needed institutions. I look forward to taking those commitments to doorsteps across Casnewydd Islwyn ahead of May’s Senedd elections. I encourage the Minister, when taking proposals forward in England, to look at the responses to the Welsh Government’s 2024 consultation and to talk with Welsh Government colleagues about the work that they have already done in developing a licensing scheme. Let us learn from one another as we work together to level up animal protections across the UK.

Currently in England and in Wales, anyone, regardless of competence, premises, finances or track record, can set up a rescue and take in animals and charge fees, and they will face scrutiny only once things have gone badly wrong. We have all seen the most extreme cases pop up on our TV screens and news apps. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) mentioned the 37 dead dogs and 20 live animals seized in Basildon and Billericay in May last year, and almost 100 animals were seized from an animal sanctuary in Lincolnshire in 2024.

Although these extreme cases of animal abuse are shocking, there is a more sinister side to the regulatory desert in which rescue centres in England and Wales operate. Too often, when adopting an animal, members of the public do not know what they are getting and from where, because of the lack of a mandatory licensing and inspection regime. Seventy-eight per cent of the public believe that minimum standards are already in place. That leaves animal abuse hidden and allows families to be taken advantage of or even put at risk. Voluntary-only standards, such as those operated by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, are well intentioned but unenforceable. Rogue providers ignore them, while responsible rescues already comply. Only a nationwide licensing framework will provide consistency and accountability.

Unfortunately, too many animals being rehoused from animal shelters are, unbeknownst to the adopters, from puppy and kitten farms. Others rehoused via rogue rescues were stolen. With no law to compel rescues to check where a dog came from, paperwork can be limited. The issue is best highlighted by the case of Maggie, a King Charles spaniel adopted from a dog rescue centre. Unfortunately, little did her adopter know that Maggie was the product of a puppy farm. That was known by the rescue centre, but not discussed. Maggie was later found to have more than 20 rotten teeth, facial paralysis and a heart murmur. She also had a shoulder injury possibly after being kicked. Worryingly, one in every four rescues is unknowingly rehoming puppy-farmed dogs like Maggie. A new licensing scheme must prevent that by ensuring proper record keeping, microchip scanning and veterinary assessment.

Animals also often arrive in pseudo-rescue centres after being imported from abroad in a practice denounced by the RSPCA as “Deliveroo for dogs”. With the Naturewatch Foundation reporting that four in every five dogs in the UK have no verified origin and the numbers of animals entering Britain doubling in the last decade, this is of grave concern.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a real champion of these issues, so I thank her for her work. My constituency is home to the Radcliffe animal centre. It is the only RSPCA animal centre in Nottinghamshire, but what most people do not realise is that the centre is still funded individually—independently—not by the national society, and it costs £800,000 a year to run. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to invest in the capacity of the sector and to look at funding of these centres, to ensure that we reach the standards that she is describing?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about consistency, levelling up and ensuring that across the UK we are all operating to those standards, so I thank him for that intervention.

People need to know the animal they are adopting. A lack of screening also presents major biosecurity concerns. A University of Liverpool study found that 15% of imported dogs that were tested had Leishmania infantum—a parasitic disease uncommon in the UK —despite 93% of the tested dogs’ owners believing that a vet had given their dog a clean bill of health. Any new licensing regime must ensure that rescue centres accept only animals imported with full documentation verifying origin and veterinary health. Medical checks must also be undertaken prior to rehoming.

Rogue operators often rehome animals with no regard for their behaviour, putting vulnerable people at risk and potentially worsening the surge in dog-related violence we have seen in recent years. Hospital admissions for dog bites have risen by 47% over the past 10 years, costing the NHS more than £71 million a year. In my county, Gwent, 539 dog attacks were reported to the police last year, an increase of more than a quarter on 2024.

We cannot allow the supply of dogs to become dominated by dodgy breeders and rogue rescue centres. That is why any new licensing regime must be outcome-focused, with minimum requirements for enrichment and behavioural support, as well as a behavioural assessment prior to rehoming. Rehoming animals with unaddressed behavioural issues only puts people at risk.

In introducing such a scheme, UK and Welsh Ministers must learn the lessons from Scotland. Small, independent foster-based rescue centres are a critical part of the animal welfare landscape, with independents outnumbering the major charity sites by almost 10 to one. In Scotland, many of these were forced to close after 2021, when the Scottish Government tied licensing to charity status and a minimum turnover of £5,000. Those closures came despite many foster-based rescue centres having excellent welfare standards. I urge the Minister not to replicate this mistake, and to ensure that any new licensing regime incorporates smaller rescue centres. In recognising this diversity of high-welfare provision, I also ask the Minister to consider a tiered approach to any new licensing fees, thereby reducing the disproportionate burden that could be created for smaller, high-welfare rescues.

In closing, I emphasise that the case for change is urgent. We need licensing schemes in England and Wales that people can trust. The rules must be robust and enforced.

18:21

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate on a very important issue to many of my residents.

The discovery of dozens of deceased dogs at the South Essex rehoming facility last year brought the consequences of the lack of regulation for animal rescue centres into sharp focus. That case is progressing through the courts, and I know that many constituents have closely followed developments, including my daughter, who is probably monitoring my attendance here. I used to be the most important male in her life, but I have been replaced by Caesar, a five-year-old ragdoll cat. Anyway, I digress.

While most rehoming and rescue centres operate to high standards, I share the concerns of residents who feel that without regulation, both animals and their owners face unnecessary risks. In the UK, we have robust animal welfare laws that regulate services including pet boarding and breeding, yet oversight of rehoming centres remains a blind spot. As it stands, anyone in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can set themselves up as a rehoming organisation without any licensing or inspection requirements. The decision to hand over a pet to a rehoming centre is an incredibly hard one to make, and those who take that decision deserve to have full confidence in the quality of care that they are promised.

I welcome the Government’s work on an integrated approach to improving animal welfare, including tackling puppy smuggling and puppy farming. I hope they will pay adequate attention to the regulation of rehoming and rescue centres. The thousands of signatures that this petition has collected, including 647 from Southend East and Rochford alone, demonstrate the scale of concern. I am grateful that the issue is getting the attention it deserves.

18:23

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

Across the United Kingdom, nearly 60% of households own a pet, and around 10.2 million of those pets are cats. They bring comfort, companionship and a great deal of amusement to millions of families. I know that personally, because I am owned by two rescue cats, Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam. Vital to the welfare of those pets and their future are our rescue and rehoming centres, such as Johnstone Cat Rescue in my constituency. Those organisations carry out extraordinary work, but beyond the duty of care established in the Animal Welfare Act, there are no specific statutory requirements governing how those services operate. As a result standards vary wildly across the sector. That is deeply unfair to the many outstanding providers that deliver a genuine and professional service through the dedication and compassion of their staff and volunteers.

Sadly, as so often is the case, it is the few that fall short that cast a shadow over the many, and it is because of such cases that we are debating this issue today. Too often, lack of training, resources or proper oversight means that even well-intentioned providers fail to meet the standard of care that our cats deserve. In more troubling cases, animals are placed in foster or rehoming centres where due care and attention are simply not given.

I will give one example. Linda, a volunteer at her local cat protection charity, saw a photograph of a kitten advertised by a local rescue centre and wanted to offer it a loving home. She completed an online form and later received a brief telephone call. During that call, she was not asked about her lifestyle, her living arrangements or whether she had any other pets, and she was given no meaningful information about the kitten’s health, background or needs; she was told only that it was three months old. She paid an adoption fee over the phone and was given an address from which to collect the kitten a few days later.

When Linda arrived, she was not allowed into the property. Instead, the fosterer came outside, closed the door behind them, took the cat carrier from Linda’s hands, pushed the cat inside and handed the carrier back to her. There was no opportunity to see the kitten’s living conditions, to see its mother and assess its health, or have any conversation about its needs or care. She was then told, almost as an afterthought, that the kitten had not been neutered or vaccinated.

That is why regulation matters. We need clear, enforceable, baseline minimum standards that protect animals, support responsible rescue centres and give the public confidence in the system. That must be backed by properly trained inspectors and meaningful oversight.

As has been mentioned, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has standards that could provide a good basis for the licensing of rescue and rehoming centres and help local authorities to enforce any licensing regime. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has 153 rescue centres already following those standards, which have been enforceable since 2015 and are self and externally audited. They cover the management and governance of centres, as well as the health and welfare of the cats and dogs in those centres and transported to them. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 should also be considered when looking at existing standards, as they also cover wildlife.

I welcome the Government’s recent animal welfare strategy, but I confess that I was disappointed to see no clear detail on how they intend to consult on the licensing of animal welfare establishments. Through my work as chair of the APPG on cats, I know that the sector is ready and willing to engage; the Government should be equally willing to listen.

If new legislation is to genuinely improve standards, we must also learn from the experience in Scotland, where it has become clear that without effective enforcement, adequate funding and properly trained inspectors, legislation alone does little to improve the lives of animals in substandard establishments. Scotland’s two-tier licensing system has also caused confusion for both rescue centres and local authorities. That is a lesson that we should take seriously, so that any system introduced in England is clear, workable and accessible for those who operate within it.

Our rescue centres do remarkable work; our cats deserve the highest standards of care, and the public deserve to have confidence that, when they open their homes and their hearts to animals in need, the system behind that decision is worthy of their trust.

18:28

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate. I pay tribute to the campaigners, who are with us today, for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of deep concern to many of my constituents, as well as to people across the northern parishes and indeed the whole country.

Across all our communities, rescue centres play an extraordinary role: they step in when animals are abandoned or neglected, or when they can simply no longer be cared for. They do so largely through the dedication of volunteers, through donations and though good will, and their work is often unseen but invaluable.

However, unlike kennels and breeders, animal rescue centres in England currently operate without a clear, consistent national licensing framework. There are proposals that would address that gap, using the model that already exists under other legislation. That would not create a new system from scratch, but extend a familiar and well-understood framework to a sector that is currently insufficiently regulated.

We know that that approach can work, because it works elsewhere. As has been mentioned, Scotland already has licensed animal shelters, and I am reliably informed that Wales is committed to introducing legislation too. That means that England is now the only part of Great Britain without a formal system of oversight. Introducing such a system would simply bring England into line with best practice across the rest of the country.

There is strong support for that across the rescue and veterinary community. The RSPCA and Dogs Trust have publicly welcomed the discussion about licensing, and colleagues across the House have also expressed their support. This is an issue on which there is genuine cross-party and evidence-based agreement, focused solely on improving animal welfare.

Across Southport and west Lancashire, we are fortunate to have several rescue organisations that do excellent work. I visited one of those, the Woodlands Animal Sanctuary, only a couple of weeks ago. It provides a safe and caring environment for animals during some of the most vulnerable periods of their lives. It already operates to high standards and would have nothing to fear from proportionate regulation.

However, not all rescue centres are able to meet the same standards. Many of them, despite the best intentions, are run from spare rooms or garden sheds. They are driven by compassion, but lack the facilities, training or support necessary to guarantee the best outcomes for animals. Without sufficient formal oversight, conditions can vary widely; in the most extreme cases, that has led to the tragic consequences we have seen across the country.

At a time when the cost of living crisis is forcing more families to make heartbreaking decisions about their pets, the pressure on rescue centres is growing. That makes it even more important that animals are placed in environments that are safe, suitable and properly supported. This is not about burdening good organisations with too much regulation; it is about giving them recognition, consistency and reassurance, while ensuring that every rescued animal receives the care it deserves. I hope that today’s debate can be a constructive step towards achieving that shared goal, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

18:33

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this evening, Sir Alec. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the 201 petitioners from Glastonbury and Somerton.

For many years, the UK has enjoyed the reputation of being a nation of animal lovers, with over half of us owning a pet. Indeed, I am owned by three Patterdale terriers, George, Bert and Griff, who keep me on my toes, and a farm cat, Thomas, who spends less and less time up at the farm.

The UK was the first country in the world to start a welfare charity for animals. That concern to rescue and care for animals led to the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. A 2025 survey by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals found that 17% of dog owners and 33% of cat owners got their pet from a rescue centre. The RSPCA collects an abandoned animal every hour during the summer, and an estimated 250,000 animals go to rescue centres every year, which equates to 700 per day.

The cost of living crisis has undoubtedly increased the number of animals being abandoned, with the RSPCA recording a 24% increase in pets being handed over in 2022. Many rescue centres reported increased pressure because of the covid pandemic, which changed the landscape and increased the number of abandoned pets. Many covid dogs were sent to rescues with major separation anxiety, having never been away from their owners. Owners clearly had to go back to work, which put untold pressure on them as well, as they had to give up their dogs.

I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that rescue centres do. Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, based near Wincanton, has been run by Liz and Colin Stewart for more than 30 years. In their time, they have saved the lives of more than 34,000 animals, including dogs, cats, ponies, chickens and rabbits. In 2007, in recognition of their work, Liz was invited to the House of Lords to receive the award for international animal rescuer of the year. They run a charitable non-profit organisation. They have no full-time paid staff and rely on support from volunteers, but the costs of running such an operation are significant, with veterinary and food costs rising every day.

Some centres do not have the experience and knowledge of Somerset and Dorset Animal Rescue, and many exist without the facilities and resources to ensure that animals receive the right care and support. However, the lack of regulation surrounding animal rescue centres means they can operate without a licence as long as they do not report making a profit.

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady touched on the costs generated by animal centres, and earlier I mentioned the £800,000 running costs of the Radcliffe animal centre in my constituency. I put on record my thanks to David Carter of Gamston in my constituency, who has lit up his house every Christmas for a decade to raise money for the local animal centre. However, does the hon. Lady agree that relying on people like David to generate funds for these centres puts their regulation and licensing, and the way they look after animals, at risk?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I thank Mr Carter for all his amazing work to support the financing of these important rescue centres. Many people across the country do exactly the same thing.

Despite having the best intentions, some establishments take on too many animals or animals they do not have the specialist knowledge, expertise or resources to help, which often results in devastating situations where animals are sadly left to suffer. Donna, a constituent from Street, wrote to me recently about the heartbreaking situation at Save A Paw in Essex, where 40 dogs were sadly discovered.

If regulation is not in place, not only are such awful situations allowed to occur, but major health risks can be posed due to poor biosecurity. Pets should be spayed, wormed, de-fleaed and vaccinated while at a rescue centre, but there is no regulation to ensure that they are. Indeed, some animals in rescue centres are becoming infected with diseases that will need lifetime treatment, which is obviously an additional cost to the owners who take them on. There is support in the industry for measures to be implemented, with an RSPCA survey finding that 82% of wildlife rehabilitators believe welfare standards are inconsistent across the sector, and that more than 68% feel statutory licensing is important.

Earlier today, I spoke to Zoe, who runs Rushton Dog Rescue in my constituency with her mum, Cindi. They have operated for nearly 20 years in Langport, and have rescued thousands of dogs, along with horses, ducks, cats, ferrets and other animals, keeping them at their 15-acre centre. Zoe told me they believe that licensing would be good for the centre, and that unregulated pop-up rescues, sometimes operating out of people’s homes, can leave animals without the care and proper expertise they need.

Concerns also exist over those who use animal rescue centres as a front to run unscrupulous puppy breeding businesses, which leave legitimate animal rescue centres to pick up the pieces. In fact, Zoe told me that that was her No. 1 concern, so I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on the extent to which her Department is aware of the issue, given its admission that it lacks a complete picture of rescue centres in the country.

The Tories pledged to pursue licensing requirements in 2021 and 2023, and confirmed that they would look to consult on the matter, but ultimately failed to act before the last general election. The Liberal Democrats have called for a comprehensive national strategy on animal welfare that secures Britain’s place as a world leader on standards. As such, we welcome this Government’s commitment to ensure rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for, but we are clear that any potential new licensing requirements must be properly enforced. There is also a need to ensure that regulations actually result in welfare improvements.

Zoe was also keen to stress that the Government must give existing rescue centres the financial support they need, to ensure they can follow new regulations to bring about improved welfare at animal rescue centres. The RSPCA has been clear that if that does not happen, many smaller rescues, set up with the best of intentions but lacking specialist resources, would be forced to closed, and the lack of capacity would place an unsustainable burden on those remaining in the sector. In turn, that would result in a lowering of animal welfare standards as remaining centres were overwhelmed and unable to care for their animals. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government would be willing to provide the support the industry requests.

I was also able to speak with Nigel, who runs the Somerton branch of Service Dogs UK, a charity dedicated to supporting armed forces and emergency services veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder by matching them with rescue dogs from across Somerset and the south-west. It uses rescue dogs from Dogs Trust, and applies strict rules, including background and household checks, before matching dogs. Nigel feels that regulation could ensure that rescue centres are properly inspected, while helping animals to receive the medical treatment they require. However, he noted that three out of 15 dogs in the Service Dogs UK system were found unchipped and abandoned on the street, which highlights the scale of the problem rescue centres are trying to deal with.

Nigel also highlighted concerns over individuals who set up centres and bring in dogs from overseas, putting them into British homes without proper controls. Vets and other public health experts have expressed concerns about the health and wellbeing of dogs and animals illegally imported into the UK, as well as the potential infection of animals already resident here.

The Liberal Democrats believe it is important to improve the welfare and quality of life of household pets, while ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. That is why I am really proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), whose Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 will transform animal welfare in the UK and eradicate cruel practices that should have been wiped out years ago.

It is right that we now look to take action on this important matter, and I hope the Government come forward urgently to launch their consultation. There is strong support from the public and industry, and as the number of abandoned pets sadly increases, the problem will only grow.

Animal cruelty must be considered unacceptable, because animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel pain and suffering. They have a right to live in decent and humane conditions, and it is crucial that we change the law to better protect them from harm. I hope today’s debate serves as an important step on the road to higher welfare for animals who find themselves in the care of rescue centres.

18:45

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec. It is also a pleasure to hear from the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for outlining the petitioners views. There were almost 110,000 of them across the country. Some of them are here today in the Public Gallery. Led by Paul and the other campaigners, they have driven so hard to get us to where we are today—not just this debate in Parliament or with the private Member’s Bill that I introduced, but in actually seeing that consultation brought forward by the Government, which is very much to be welcomed.

I begin by thanking hon. Members from across the Chamber: the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock); the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones); the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba); the chair of the APPG on cats, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) contributed in a really valuable way to this debate. It is without doubt that the breadth and strength of those contributions have demonstrated why this issue of licensed animal shelters and rescue centres matters so deeply to communities right across the country.

Now, it might be highly unusual to have the shadow Transport Secretary speaking in a debate on a subject for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I requested this one personally, given the fact that an incident that has been referred to, and that sparked off this position, happened in my own constituency at Crays Hill. Many Members will be aware of that and have made a reference to that horrible and tragic case—the appalling discovery of dozens of animals found dead at a property which was presenting itself as a rehoming centre. Some animals were taken back alive. Yet even when they were taken alive some had to have the most horrendous operations done to them, including one having to have its eyes removed because it was so badly maltreated. I was inundated with correspondence from my own constituents and people across the country who are determined to see high standards brought in for this sector and proper, meaningful oversight delivered.

I thank those 2,600 of my constituents who responded to this petition—more than any other constituency in the country. They are the reason that we are where we are today and the reason I brought forward my private Member’s Bill for establishing a licensing regime for animal shelters. Only by setting clear standards, and, crucially, as Members have said, by having them properly enforced, can we actually protect animals. That is why I am determined that, hopefully, with the Government’s consultation coming forward soon, we arrive at a licensing regime that puts animal welfare at its heart—and I look forward to hearing a few more details from the Minister in her response and very much welcome the proposal’s inclusion in the animal welfare strategy. That licensing regime must be one that clamps down on malpractice and bad actors while protecting and supporting the many kind-hearted individuals and organisations—from small individuals right through to some of our largest national charities—which provide safe, caring and responsible environments for animals and often animals in real need.

We have heard passionate speeches from right across the House in support of those small, often individual institutions in Member’s constituencies. I am heartened by the depth of experience and expertise that exists in the sector to help us get this licensing regime right as well. I place on record my thanks to the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Farplace Animal Rescue and so many others for their outstanding work and leadership in this area. I obviously also have to pay tribute to Paul Watkinson. His dogged determination to protect animal welfare and ensure that high standards are there across the board also deserves recognition in this House, as do local campaigners in my constituency.

As the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford said, the problem, as has become painfully clear, is that anyone, regardless of their experience or their intention, can put up a sign and declare that they have an animal rescue shelter or rehoming centre. They will not face routine inspection, be subject to monitoring or be required to apply for any form of licence. That gap in oversight has led to consequences that are as clear as they are troubling: it has undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sector; placed intolerable pressure on reputable charities that are trying to get on with their meaningful work and that already face additional costs; and most importantly, it has resulted in animals suffering—not only dogs and cats but horses and the other animals that have been mentioned.

We know that it does not have to be this way. As we have heard, in Scotland, a licensing regime provided a clear bulwark against malpractice and has been in place since 2021. As was mentioned, in Wales, the Government have made plain their intention to move in the same direction. It is therefore vital that England, which is currently an outlier, moves in the same direction. To continue as we are at the moment is clearly not sustainable, and there is a clear advantage to addressing this issue now. As we set about fixing the problem, we are not starting from scratch. As hon. Members have mentioned, we can draw directly from the experiences of those who have gone before us to get it right. I have spoken to many animal welfare charities based in Scotland that are adapting to the legislation and want to see updates. We can help get it right. We can get it even better here than those charities have managed. That is why it is so important that we act now.

It is important to recognise that many rescue and rehoming centres already operate to the highest of standards. A significant number are subscribed to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes voluntary code. That framework is the gold standard and was developed over many years with considerable care, expertise and sector-wide input. I am sure that the Minister will look closely at the voluntary code and work constructively with the association and the wider sector to ensure that the policy is delivered properly. At its best, the sector shows us what good looks like. The task before us is to ensure that those standards are applied fairly and right across the board, so that wherever they are, animals get gold-standard treatment.

The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the fact that, for licensing to succeed, it must be proportionate and, crucially, properly enforced. One message I have heard repeatedly from across the sector is that regulation without enforcement is no regulation at all. Clear standards must be matched by trained inspectors, adequate local authority resourcing and a system that allows concerns to be acted on before situations deteriorate into crisis, as clearly happened in my constituency.

Any effective system must reflect the realities of modern rescue and rehoming, including foster-based rescues and online rehoming operations, as well as reflecting the work of organisations facilitating rehoming more broadly. The ADCH standards are excellent and many responsible rescue centres have rightly adopted them, but a voluntary system alone will always leave gaps, as rogue operators can simply opt out. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a licensing regime for rehoming organisations, but that consultation must be followed by real clarity. The sector has been has been ready to engage for many years. What it needs now is a timetable and a clear scope, and there must also be reassurance that wildlife rescue centres will not be left outside of any framework and that there will be support for smaller organisations during any transition.

What happened in my constituency last year is not just deeply disturbing; it is a crime, and the man who was arrested for it has recently pleaded guilty and is now awaiting sentencing. I am glad that he will be brought to justice. The situation has galvanised campaigners, charities and Members from across the House to work together to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves. There is a clearly a broad consensus across Parliament, the sector and the devolved Administrations. The case for licensing is well made, but what is now required is genuine action.

Animals entering rescue and rehoming centres are, by definition, already the most vulnerable. Many have been abandoned, neglected or mistreated before. The very least we owe them is a system that keeps them safe and properly cared for, and we must hold those whose care they are put into to clear and enforceable standards. I urge the Government to ensure that England embarks on a structured roll-out of a licensing regime that is proportionate, inclusive and centred on animal welfare, regardless of the size of the organisation involved, at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the dogs at Crays Hill did not die in vain and we can prevent other tragedies in future.

18:54

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec—my first time, I think; I am sure there will be many more. I thank the Petitions Committee and everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue, especially the 164 from my own constituency of Wallasey. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee in the way that she did. The strength of public support behind the petition reflects a clear and shared concern. There was certainly cross-party consensus in the debate today about the state of sections of the rescue and rehousing sector, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposal to introduce licensing and regulation for dog and cat rescues. I also want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to boosting animal welfare across the board.

Animals play such an important role in our lives. They enrich our homes, support our wellbeing, and in return they deserve the highest standards of care and protection. We are a nation of animal lovers, so we have to ensure that our policies uphold our commitment to their welfare at all stages of their lives. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes reported that almost 35,000 dogs and 69,000 cats were rehomed by its member organisations in 2024. It found that more pets were being abandoned due to the cost of living crisis, something that has been mentioned by hon. Members across the House during this debate.

The Government are concerned about the neglect happening in organisations that pose as animal rescues and about the lack of transparency in the rescue and rehoming sector itself—again, an issue brought up by many who spoke in the debate today. I was horrified, as was everyone else in this debate, by the case in Billericay in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden); the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) also referred to it. In May last year, 37 dogs were found dead in the care of a man who was pocketing donations for his so-called animal sanctuary. It was a shocking act of neglect and lack of humanity from the man entrusted to care for those animals.

As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said in his wind-up speech, the man has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing next week. That points to the fact that there are rules and regulations currently around the treatment of animals in rescues, even though there is not direct licensing in England at the moment. So it is not true that absolutely no rules apply, although the Government and I accept that we need to consider what we can do to increase the protection for animals that find themselves in that position.

Organisations may present themselves as rescues but fail to meet even basic welfare standards. There are also cases of well-meaning individuals willing to take in animals in need, but despite good intentions they lack the capacity to care for the animals properly. We have to make sure that the public can trust in the safety and legitimacy of animal rescue shelters in their area. We are taking seriously the risks posed by illegitimate rescues, whether that is financial exploitation, inadequate disease control or the rehoming of animals with unmanaged behavioural issues, all of which are risks, as many right hon. and hon. Members pointed out in this debate.

Most rescues operate responsibly and act with genuine intentions; we will crack down on those that do not. Last month we published our animal welfare strategy, which sets out the priorities that will deliver by 2030. It delivers on our commitments to introduce the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation. The Secretary of State launched the strategy at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, an organisation that delivers crucial work rescuing and rehoming dogs and cats while also promoting best practice and knowledge, providing training and grant funding to animal rescue partners and offering online pet advice and training to anyone who needs it.

The Government recognise the incredible work that people across the country, including those at Battersea, do to protect our animals. That work, often done on a voluntary basis, ensures that the animals taken into the care of those organisations are offered the opportunity of a forever home. We also value our strong relationships with those who work in these key sectors, and are proud of the work we have already achieved through partnerships with such key stakeholders. Our history of delivering positive outcomes for animals would not be possible without the dedication of the organisations and individuals we work with and their expertise across many species and complex areas.

I am sure many Members will have attended the engaging Westminster Hall debate on the animal strategy last week. It further demonstrated the cross-party support and real dedication and commitment from across the country to ensuring the welfare of animals. As the pet population continues to grow, it is essential that our welfare standards keep pace, ensuring that all animals are safeguarded throughout their lives. To that end, the strategy will deliver on our manifesto commitments to end puppy smuggling and puppy farming. We will ensure that existing legislation is up to standard and work with local authorities and the sector to ensure that it is effectively enforced; as hon. Gentlemen and Ladies from across the House know, if the most perfect legislation in this area is not enforced, it might as well not exist.

We have come from a period when enforcement suffered enormously because of cuts to local authorities. It is harder, and it has been much harder recently, for enforcement to happen in a reasonable way. We have to make sure that we close the loopholes. As part of the animal welfare strategy, we have been very clear that we will launch a consultation on licensing domestic rescue and rehoming organisations. That would ensure that set welfare standards were being met and enforced across the licensed rescue centres. That could include, for example, requirements for training, for the environment the animals are kept in and for standards of care.

Today, hon. Ladies and Gentlemen from across the House have pointed out the need to ensure that we strike the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked in particular about a mistake that she said the Scottish Government made when introducing their licensing regime, which had the unintended consequence of closing down quite a lot of facilities that might have sensibly been able to survive. It is important that this Government learn the lessons of the unintended errors made in trying to regulate appropriately in such a diverse sector. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock made a similar point in his remarks.

We do not want to have such a fantastically sophisticated licensing regime that we put a lot of very good organisations that are doing a valuable job out of business. We are aware that many small rescue and rehoming organisations rely solely on donations and volunteer efforts. Any new licensing framework must therefore be proportionate, and we will carefully consider the variations in types of rescues and animals that they look after.

I know that many of our constituents will be keen to engage with the consultation at the appropriate point. We will share details about that, including scope and timings, as the policy is developed. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock asked a series of questions about that, but many of those questions are on points that the consultation will be trying to tease out, so that we can come to an appropriate decision about the best way to license and regulate in this area and we do the most good and the least harm.

I want to be clear that animal rescue organisations, as we have all contemplated following the horrible events in Billericay, must already meet statutory welfare requirements. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, any person responsible for an animal, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, has a duty to ensure its welfare. Companion animal rescue and rehoming organisations in England and Wales must therefore comply with the statutory welfare requirements set out in the 2006 Act. Members of the public can also check whether a rescue centre is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. As has been pointed out in this debate, that group has set clear standards for animal assessments, neutering and rehoming procedures to which all its members adhere. The Government will continue to promote the work of that group and to encourage the public to source pets from responsible rescue and rehoming organisations in the United Kingdom. Many animal welfare organisations work hard to promote more responsible sourcing practices, and we will continue to promote their efforts.

We know that some individuals choose to rescue pets from abroad. Bringing animals from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We will continue to develop the evidence base on the welfare issues associated with international rescue and rehoming. We have already commissioned the University of Liverpool to assess the impact on dog welfare, both for the dogs rehomed from abroad and for the domestic population. We expect to publish that research later this year.

I hope that everyone will agree that we must move forward, both with our banning of puppy farming and with the licensing of rescues, so that we modernise our animal welfare laws in this very important area and ensure that all animals, whether they lose their first home and must be rehomed or not, can look forward to acceptable standards of care and welfare before they find their new forever home.

19:06

[Irene Campbell]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response. This has been an important and informative debate. The animal welfare strategy is a big step forward in the right direction, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking steps to correct some of the gaps in our animal welfare legislation. We have a massive opportunity to create change and I am looking forward to the consultation that is coming soon from the Government, as we have just heard.

I once again thank the petitioner, Paul Watkinson, and his colleague Niki Roe, as well as the groups that I met in preparation for this debate. I also thank, as ever, the staff of the Petitions Committee for all their hard work in organising these debates. As a final point, I should probably have mentioned that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dog advisory welfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 718660 relating to the licensing and regulation of animal rescue centres.

19:08

Sitting adjourned.