Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Debate between Aphra Brandreth and Danny Chambers

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chambers]

Dog-on-dog attacks are a huge issue. It largely comes down to socialisation when they are puppies. It was made a lot worse during the covid pandemic when people could not attend normal puppy training classes, and puppies could not walk and meet other dogs or have normal training regimes.

I will also come on to the problem of dogs having illegally cropped ears—when their ears are cut off—because dogs communicate by body language, and part of their body language is ear position. If they cannot move their ears, they cannot communicate in normal ways to other dogs that they are not a threat, and they are more likely to get into fights and difficulties. It is the same if their tails are cut off and they cannot show whether they are happy, sad, angry or confident.

When owners buy a new puppy, often they do not realise that it has been smuggled and taken from its mother far too soon. That can cause a lot of medical issues and other diseases, such as parvo virus. It is not unusual for someone to buy a new puppy and, within the first week or two, have to go to the vet repeatedly with a very sick animal, whose problems are often quite hard to diagnose. Sometimes these diseases are fatal. There are few things more heartbreaking than a family who, within a few days of ownership, not only have an expensive veterinary bill but have lost their new puppy.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing this important Bill, which I support. He talks about the impact of diseases that puppies might have when they are brought in. Does he agree that there are also diseases that have potential impacts on human health, often for the veterinary surgeons or nurses who are looking after them? For example, diseases such as Brucella canis could lead to miscarriage for a lady if she is looking after one of those puppies while pregnant.

[Dr Chambers]

I know that the hon. Lady speaks with authority as her husband is a vet. I thank her for sitting on the Committee and for pushing the Bill through. She also has a private Member’s Bill on animal welfare. She makes an important point that has been consuming the veterinary profession for the last couple of years. A lot of dogs brought in from abroad have a disease called Brucella canis, which can affect humans. It can cause infertility and miscarriages. Obviously, if a dog has been illegally smuggled in, owners might not be aware of the risk because they assume it has been born in the UK. It is a huge human health risk as well.

Just last night, I was still receiving messages from veterinary colleagues about treating animals that they strongly suspect have been smuggled in because of the type of illnesses that they are seeing. That is why we are striving to end those practices by delivering the measures in the Bill.

The Bill closes loopholes in our pet travel rules that are currently exploited. It does so by reducing the number of animals permitted per non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle—including vehicles on board a train or ferry—and to three per person for foot or air passengers. Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising the impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial.

Crucially, the Bill places a duty on the Government to use these regulation-making powers to deliver three key measures: a ban on the import of puppies and kittens under six months old; a ban on the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant; and a ban on the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated. Raising the minimum age at which dogs and cats can be imported will ensure that very young animals are not taken from their mothers too soon. Separating a puppy or kitten from its mother too young has huge implications for its health and welfare.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Aphra Brandreth and Danny Chambers

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is a pleasure to reach this milestone in the Bill’s journey through the House of Commons. As we know, livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers. In Committee, I and other Committee members shared the experiences that had resonated with us of farmers having suffered attacks to their livestock. The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically often fatal. There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and their young leading to hypothermia or starvation. I have seen pictures from farmers in my constituency of the aftermath of attacks that have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive.

The consequences of an attack, no matter the scale, are profound, and attacks are sadly all too common. The data from the recent National Sheep Association survey speaks for itself: 96% of respondents had experienced incidents in the last 12 months, and 98% agreed that there is an urgent need for additional police powers. The responses highlight that livestock worrying remains a huge problem for the sector and show just how important it is to deliver the Bill.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As someone who grew up on a sheep farm, a vet who has treated injuries caused by dogs that are out of control, and someone who continues to work with farmers quite closely in the Meon valley, I cannot emphasise enough how necessary this legislation is. The problem is devastating for animals, but also causes farmers to take a huge economic hit. It is horrendously stressful for everyone involved, and it is not a niche problem—it happens all the time. I thank the hon. Member for introducing this legislation.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank the hon. Member for his insights as a vet, and for emphasising what so many people across the House know: these changes are vital. May I also say how grateful I am to the hon. Members who took the time to serve on the Bill Committee? I am truly grateful for their support and contributions, and for the conversations I have had with many of them about the Bill.

As we heard in Committee, the Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring that it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. The Bill strengthens police powers, so that they can do their job more effectively. Specifically, it gives the police powers of entry, and allows them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence—changes that farmers in my constituency have specifically told me are necessary. The Bill will also increase the penalty—and we hope, in turn, the deterrent against livestock worrying. The fine is currently capped at a maximum of £1,000; that will go up to an unlimited amount, to reflect the severity of livestock worrying from an animal welfare standpoint, as well as the economic toll an attack can have on farming.

Farming has diversified, and therefore the scope of livestock requiring protection has increased. I am delighted that camelids such as alpacas and llamas will now be protected under the Bill. Anyone who has driven down country roads, such as those in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, will know that farmers move livestock. In recognition of that, the Bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place; that will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. As I said in Committee, the legislation puts animal welfare and farmers right at its heart.

Today marks exactly one year since the general election. I am deeply proud and grateful that in my first year as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, I have been able to introduce a Bill in my name that will make a genuine difference both for animal welfare and farmers. This is precisely why I stood for election, and it is testament to the strength of this Parliament that an Opposition Back Bencher can help deliver meaningful change in the law that will have a real and lasting impact.

We should all be able to enjoy the countryside, and there is no finer countryside than in Chester South and Eddisbury. However, that enjoyment comes with a responsibility to preserve and protect it, and to support those who care for it every day: our farming community. The Bill gives us the opportunity to act to protect our countryside, support our farmers and strengthen animal welfare. I hope that Members from all sides of the House will join me in backing it, just as they did in Committee.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Aphra Brandreth and Danny Chambers

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 49, in schedule 2, page 87, line 13, at end insert—

“(18A) In section 130B (arrangements in relation to independent mental advocates: England), after subsection (3)(d), insert—

‘(e) support the patient’s carer and family members to prepare for the patient’s discharge from hospital treatment, and

(f) support the patient to access help with social and financial stressors that might otherwise increase their likelihood of future detention.’”

This amendment extends the support offered by Mental Health advocates to cover social and financial stressors and support for family carers and other members of the household when the patient is discharged.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I jumped the gun this morning, so I have already spoken in detail about the amazing initiative at Melbury Lodge with Winchester Citizens Advice. I will not bore the Committee with the details again, except to say that it is a brilliant example not only of delivering really good care for patients, but of a really good cost-effective intervention for the taxpayer. If it is not appropriate for it to be set out in secondary or primary legislation, will the Minister consider a meeting with me, Melbury Lodge and Winchester Citizens Advice to discuss how this type of initiative could be rolled out across the country?

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to make some brief comments on amendment 49.

I am sympathetic to aims of the hon. Member for Winchester in tabling the amendment. A patient who is being discharged from hospital may indeed require specific, targeted support. The overall success of their treatment and continued recovery can be greatly enhanced where the right structures are in place to support them in the community. The amendment rightly draws attention to social and financial stressors that may affect an individual at the point of discharge and in the weeks and months that follow. We all recognise that there is a pressing need for a more joined-up approach between in-patient services and community provision. Without that, we risk patients falling through the cracks and suffering unnecessary and distressing re-admissions. Better discharge planning must be at the heart of our efforts.

I have some concerns, however. Although I acknowledge the good intentions behind the amendment, it risks expanding the remit of independent mental health advocates beyond what might be appropriate. There is a delicate balance, but an important distinction, between advocacy and care co-ordination. Independent mental health advocates play a vital role, and it is essential that their independence and clarity of purpose be preserved. If we are not careful, we risk blurring that boundary. In doing so, we may undermine the very effectiveness of the independent mental health advocate in fulfilling their primary function.

The role of an IMHA is to support patients in understanding and exercising their rights under the Mental Health Act. They may already be involved in supporting an individual to prepare for discharge, including by contributing to plans for ongoing care and support. The amendment would significantly increase the breadth of that role and might shift the focus away from the core purpose of advocacy.