Animal Rescue Centres

James McMurdock Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.