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

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is an absolute privilege to speak in support of the Bill and better health and welfare standards in our dog, cat and ferret import industry. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on introducing the Bill. I admire the work that she done to tighten our importation regulations and advance animal welfare standards for some of our most loved pets. Her work is even more important given the absence of any Government legislation to introduce such measures.

Many of my constituents, and many people in the country more broadly, will be heartened by the hon. Member’s dedication to improving the welfare of our imported pets. With National Pet Day on 11 April fast approaching, the debate is timely. National Pet Day celebrates the contribution of pets to our lives, and highlights the care and welfare requirements of our animals. Just a week earlier, National Ferret Day will be marked on 2 April, celebrating the estimated 100,000 pet ferrets in the UK. The contributions that cats and dogs make to our lives will be celebrated on their namesake days, on 8 and 26 August respectively.

That shows and proves that we are a nation of animal lovers—and one that holds particular affection for cats and dogs. Like many other Members, I am sure, I grew up with dogs—mainly Lancashire heelers. That is, sadly, a dying breed, but they are wonderful dogs that are particularly special to my West Lancashire constituency, where we have two kinds of heeler: the Lancashire heeler and the Ormskirk heeler. We had Scamp, who was a vicious little beast but was loved nevertheless, as well as Pal, Beauty, Becky 1 and, sadly, Becky 2, Tilly, Tiny and Pippin. Everybody in the family was involved in naming those dogs, and they were very much a part of our family life growing up. As an adult, I have always had cats. Unfortunately, we most recently lost Colin to a congenital heart disease.

Research from the World Population Review this year revealed that the United Kingdom is home to about 12 million dogs—the sixth largest population of dogs in the world. Research from various organisations including the PDSA puts the percentage of UK households home to a dog at between 29% and 31%, which is huge. As of 2023, the number of cats owned is almost as high as dogs, with 11 million cats across the United Kingdom.

To the many people across this country with a dog, cat or ferret, these animals are not just pets, but valued members of our families. For others, a dog or cat can offer the much-needed companionship they may not otherwise have. We saw the social and personal benefit of animal ownership throughout the pandemic, when 3.2 million pets were purchased during the periods of lockdown. Lacking social interaction and instead facing social isolation, individuals and families alike sought the great companionship that pets can provide. With this nation’s love and affection for our feline and canine friends in mind, I believe the Bill’s provisions will be welcomed by many of our constituents.

To understand the importance of the Bill, it is essential to understand the current issues around puppy, kitten and ferret smuggling. Currently, these animals can enter this country in two primary ways: under the non-commercial rules of the pet travel scheme, or via the commercial importation regime. Pet travel rules have made travelling with pets both cheaper and easier for owners. However, these non-commercial rules have been abused by puppy and kitten smugglers, particularly those who care not for the health and welfare of these animals, but for the financial reward from this exploitative practice. Traders have fraudulently claimed pet ownership of numerous puppies and kittens to import these animals under the non-commercial rules of the pet travel scheme, yet these puppies and kittens are commercially sold upon importation.

Requirements for owners travelling with a pet are less stringent than those for commercial import, and rightly so—that is perfectly understandable. Smugglers have therefore sought to abuse the pet travel importation route to circumvent more stringent health regulations for their animals. It is the health and welfare of puppies, kittens and ferrets that is frequently compromised when these pets are illegally smuggled into the United Kingdom.

As I suggested when I outlined the sheer number of these pets in this country, the demand for cats and dogs is extremely high. The demand for young puppies and kittens from high-value breeds is similarly high, as is, sadly, the demand for animals with certain mutilations. Cropped-ear dogs and declawed cats are both in demand, despite the illegality of both mutilations in this country. The sheer demand for dogs and cats of all types, coupled with the demand for dogs and cats with illegal mutilations under UK law, has encouraged the abuse of our animal importation rules. With less stringent regulation, pet importation has been feigned, and the health and welfare of imported animals has suffered. In 2021, almost 1,000 dogs and cats were detained for being non-compliant with existing animal health and welfare legislation, and that is just the number of identified imported animals. As with any illicit industry, the true figure could well be far higher.

It is with those issues in mind that I welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will offer far greater protection for the health and welfare of dog, cats and ferrets imported into this country. The measures outlined are eminently sensible. To address the abuse of non-commercial importation rules, it is my understanding that the Bill will reduce the number of animals that can travel under the non-commercial rules from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per foot passenger or air passenger. Right now, smugglers are benefiting from non-commercial pet importation rules, so reducing the number that any one person can claim as a pet when travelling will impinge further on the fraudulent use of this importation route and the associated health and welfare costs of puppy smuggling under this system.

More broadly, the Bill’s provisions will put in place higher health and welfare standards for imported puppies and kittens. Banning the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age seems very reasonable because separating puppies or kittens from their mothers too early carries a risk of illness or even death for those young animals. We know that the separation of puppies from their mothers is not advisable at all before eight weeks for exactly those reasons.

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a licence holder to sell a puppy as a pet or to permanently separate it from its biological mother before eight weeks; and for those who may choose to sell a litter from a family pet, there is a consensus among many welfare and veterinary organisations, such as the Animal Welfare Foundation, the Blue Cross, the PDSA and Dogs Trust, that puppies should not be separated until this age. The emotional and physical distress experienced by both the mother and the puppy can be immense, and if not fatal, it can have behavioural consequences for these animals throughout their lives. Each week a puppy spends with its mother is crucial for its social and behavioural development. Bite inhibition and gentle play are taught in this environment and are essential before a puppy is rehomed.

The recognition of harm to kittens separated from their mothers at a young age is also already recognised in legislation. In this country it is illegal for a licensed breeder to sell a kitten under the age of eight weeks of age. In recent months this place has shown great concern about the possession of dangerous dogs that pose a risk to public health. Ensuring a suitable age for imported dogs and the welfare of these animals should therefore be an equally high priority in this House.

To prevent the proliferation of a dangerous dog population in the UK, we need to prevent the importation of animals at higher risk of displaying dangerous behavioural traits. This should include prohibiting young puppies without the behavioural maturity and bite inhibition that they learn from their mothers. That is why this Bill’s provision to ban the importation of puppies, kittens and ferrets under the age of six months can only be a positive step towards greater animal welfare standards and towards reducing our population of dangerous dogs that may pose a threat to public health.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, thoughtful and well-researched speech. Does she agree that there is a need for greater public information and education, as previously mentioned in the debate, to reduce the risk of young age puppies being sold?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention and agree wholeheartedly that we need to make sure that public information and education is improved. Many people do not understand the impact and possible implications of taking a young puppy or kitten so early. They often do this out of the goodness of their heart, and with the best intentions of wanting to look after a young puppy or kitten or get one for their children, but we need to ensure that people are aware of the long-term and often permanent damage that can be done to young puppies and kittens in this way. By removing the ability to import puppies and kittens under the age of six months, we can likely remove the incentive for these animals to be stripped from their mothers at a critically young age and thus reduce the numbers of puppies and kittens suffering from the health and welfare consequences of premature separation.

We should also prohibit the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated, which several Members have talked about. Those animals have often suffered the trauma of unnecessary procedures such as ear cropping and tail docking. Such mutilations have no health benefits; they are abusive practices recognised in UK law as illegal. They offer only emotional and physical trauma to the animals on which they are inflicted. Preventing the importation of animals with these traumatic mutilations will also prevent the importation of animals which, as a result of the physical and emotional trauma caused by the mutilations, can develop behavioural changes.

Dogs with cropped ears or docked tails may be recognised by certain members of the public as being more aggressive or dangerous. We hear that regularly—or at any rate I do, in my surgeries. If people keep their own pets away from these animals, which they often do for fear of aggression towards them or their dogs, the animals will suffer further from a lack of socialisation and their behaviour will worsen further. Similarly, the banning of imports of dogs and cats with mutilations will protect puppies and kittens from harmful practices, and will hopefully instigate a decline in demand for pets with certain physical characteristics. If it is illegal to import a puppy with cropped ears, it is common sense that the incentive to crop that puppy’s ears at its location of origin will be diminished. If it cannot be imported and sold legally in the UK, it is logical to conclude that that characteristic will lose the value that it once had to the importer.

We may also hope that the criminalisation of certain mutilations will reduce the demand for these practices from the consumer, along with the education referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). In this place, I frequently hear the argument that the criminalisation of any activity may increase the attractiveness of engaging in whatever is being criminalised, but in the case of animal welfare I do not find that argument particularly convincing. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I believe that following the criminalisation of certain mutilations, those wanting to buy a puppy or kitten may understand better the harm associated with these practices and choose to shun the imported animals. We ban them because of the mutilations and because they are damaging, not just because this is a fashion that we do not like.

As for those whose conscience does not prohibit them from requiring a mutilated puppy or kitten, the recognition of their pet’s becoming illegal in the future might. We can hope that both the importer and the consumer will be discouraged from mutilating and acquiring mutilated animals respectively. The legal importation will all but disappear, and we may hope—optimistically—that the illegal smuggling trade will face several disruptions, with the broader recognition of the harm that mutilated animals have endured.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that although many of us have learnt a great deal about these practices, courtesy of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the wider public are not aware of some of the consequences? Could the Government not do much more to inform the public of these practices and support the wider provisions of the Bill?

[Ashley Dalton]

I entirely agree. The wider public are not necessarily aware of that or the wide range of existing legislation, let alone the provisions that will be introduced by the Bill if it proceeds successfully. By engaging in this debate we are helping to raise awareness, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on enabling that by presenting the Bill.

The proposed banning of the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats is another provision that will help to protect animal health and welfare. The plans of those seeking to circumvent new rules limiting the number of animals imported under non-commercial rules would be scuppered. Those seeking to abuse our laws will always try to find new ways in which to sustain their exploitative operations in any which way they can, but the Bill, well thought out as it is, offers great two-layer protection for puppies and kittens. Let us imagine a scenario in which a puppy smuggler wanted to import several puppies or kittens, under the guise of the animals being their pets. The limit to the legal importation of these animals under non-commercial rules on an aeroplane would now be three. Cognisant of that limit, a smuggler could have sought to import a heavily pregnant dog or cat which would then give birth in the UK to numerous puppies or kittens which could then be sold. This practice would be limited, with the further provision banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats. A puppy smuggler could not simply travel with a heavily pregnant dog or cat under the guise of pet ownership for the animal then to give birth as a commercial opportunity in the UK.

Crucially, the Bill will also support the health and welfare of pregnant cats and dogs, who are our pets and can suffer greatly from international travel when heavily pregnant. The physical and emotional upheaval of long-haul travel can prompt early labour without the necessary veterinary care, and therefore carries risks of harm or death for both the mother and the puppies or kittens involved.

In reviewing the specifics of the Bill in preparation for the debate, I was astonished to find that some of its provisions were not already enshrined in legislation. These are sensible and considered measures for which I can see little downside, and they are well supported by others outside this place. The support that the Bill has garnered from animal welfare stakeholders and charities demonstrates the benefit its provisions could have for the health and welfare of puppies and kittens in the UK.

The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home all support measures in the Bill, and they supported them when they were introduced in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Those stakeholders are the experts in the field, and their endorsement has reassured me that the measures are well considered and likely to positively impact the health and welfare of cats and dogs.

In fact, the importance of supporting the Bill has grown greater since the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill in May 2023. The Prime Minister rode back on the commitment he made during his ill-fated leadership election in which he pledged to retain that Bill in the Government’s legislative agenda. It was left to Opposition Members to try to revive that Bill in an Opposition day debate on 21 June last year. I spoke then in defence of greater regulation to ensure the welfare of animals imported into this country. Despite voting in favour of Labour’s motion, Government Members rejected our best attempts to revive the Bill.

I have since pressed the Government in this place on their failure to support better animal welfare standards. In January, on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, I pressed the Minister about the Government’s plans on puppy smuggling and ear-cropping legislation. However, as the title of that Bill suggested, the Government were concerned there not with the importation of domestic pets but with the exports of livestock. The absence of legislation in this area is exactly why I was keen to speak today in support of this Bill.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

The banning of live exports is one of the real benefits of our leaving the European Union. Were we to have stayed in, we would not have been able to give that benefit to our livestock. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is a real benefit to animals in this country?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It was unfortunate that, even at that point, we still had not managed to bring anything forward around the importation of pets, and it was disappointing that the kept animals Bill was abandoned. We were told in the House that the Government expected such measures to come forward through private Members’ Bills, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon on her Bill. I am delighted that what I considered to be something for the birds at the time has come about, and I am delighted on this occasion to have been wrong.

If the moral arguments for the Bill—greater protections for the health and welfare of domestic animals—are not compelling enough for Members across the House, the biosecurity threat posed by a poorly regulated and exploited importation industry should be. That is of particular relevance to my constituents in West Lancashire, which is also a farming community and so relies significantly on biosecurity.

Puppies, kittens and ferrets imported into the UK illegally pose a significant risk of parasitic disease. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took oral evidence on its puppy smuggling inquiry in October 2019, but the written evidence submitted to that inquiry and published for all Members of the House to read was particularly interesting. Dogs and puppies illegally landed in the UK were recognised as presenting a significant biosecurity risk. The pet travel scheme requires microchipping, rabies vaccination, a mandatory pre-travel waiting period and, depending on the country from which the pet is travelling, tapeworm treatment and a rabies antibody test result to create a pet passport.

The commercial importation scheme has greater requirements, as I referenced earlier, and has all the conditions of the pet travel scheme alongside a pre-importation veterinary examination, an animal health certificate and pre-notification to the authorities to ensure welfare during transportation. The illegal smuggling of pets, where there is not compliance with PTS or commercial importation standards, leaves our residents’ pets, animals and us at risk of infectious diseases that may spread to other animals or, in some cases, people in the UK.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is making points that others have not made, so this is a very valuable contribution. Will she say something about how animals coming in that perhaps have not had those vaccinations, or that are not properly certificated as such, can cause devastation to farming communities like hers, because the diseases they carry do not necessarily stick to one individual species? This can be a real issue for an entire community. It is all very well having a law, but enforcement is the key to stopping these problems arising.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising how important this is in farming communities such as mine. This is crucial, and we have legislation in place, some of which many farmers find quite onerous, to protect the biosecurity of their livestock and land. It is particularly relevant in my constituency, which has wetlands and bird sanctuaries.

Some protections are difficult to put in place, and I have had long discussions with chicken and wildfowl breeders in West Lancashire about the things they have to do to protect our nation’s biosecurity. We need to ensure there is continuing awareness of the legislation because, obviously, parasitic infections take no notice of borders.

[Selaine Saxby]

As I said in my speech, this is not covered by the Bill, and the British Veterinary Association is quite comfortable that it is not fully included and that the EFRA Committee is continuing its work in this area.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that welcome clarification.

The provision in the Bill to reduce the number of animals that can be claimed as personal pets, and that can therefore be imported under the pet travel scheme regulations, will help to address this biosecurity risk. Reducing the number of puppies, kittens and ferrets that can be admitted to just three will help to reduce the numbers that a smuggler can import under these less stringent biosecurity rules.

Proposed new article 5A of the regulations should further help to limit abuse of the pet travel scheme. Under this article, the movement of a cat, dog or ferret would not be classed as non-commercial unless the animal is accompanied by its owner, or unless the movement occurs within five days of its owner arriving in the country. This change would help to prevent abuse of the non-commercial importation regulations and limit the awful feigning of commercial animals as pets to circumvent the requirements for commercial imports.

Alongside that reduction, the Bill would place an emphasis on greater enforcement mechanisms, which we have talked about at length. I would welcome any further detail that the hon. Member for North Devon can provide to ensure that this sensible and worthwhile legislation is able to be enforced.



Having looked at the Bill with great interest, and having considered the specifics of each measure carefully, I am proud to support the hon. Member for North Devon in the passage of the Bill. Along with many millions in this country, I hold our pets in the highest regard. They make the lives of families and individuals up and down the country fuller and brighter. It is with the societal benefit of cats, dogs and ferrets and their welfare and health in mind that I am proud to support the Bill. Its measures will protect the welfare of our domestic animal imports and protect our animals and public health at home.

I also support the Bill because, as I said, we sadly lost our cat, Colin, to congenital heart disease just after we had moved house. We are looking forward to getting a new cat—yet to be named—and hopefully a new dog, which I am insisting will be called Kenneth. It is really important to me that legislation is in place to ensure that anybody buying a new cat, dog or ferret as a member of their family can be reassured that it has been treated properly. After the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), I am seriously considering also getting a ferret. My father has always wanted one.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for North Devon and congratulate her on picking up what the Government have hitherto refused to advance. This is a necessary, important and common-sense piece of legislation that I urge all Members who are present today to support.