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

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring the Bill. I welcome this latest iteration and the Government’s support for it. It is only right that we on these Benches acknowledge that we initially introduced it but failed to bring it to fruition. Because it has taken us so long to get to this point, there is definitely a feeling of, “Let’s just get this done”. In that spirit, I will make only a couple of points; they were made way back when but are, I think, worth mentioning again now.

As others have mentioned, it is good news that the change in the non-commercial pet travel rules will reduce the number of animals that can be brought into the country from five per person to five per vehicle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I would be interested to know how that figure was reached. Perhaps the Minister could explain the thinking in her response.

The Dogs Trust national dogs survey in 2021, based on responses from over 240,000 owners, estimated that 97.7% of them had three dogs or fewer. Despite the drastic reduction, five still seems a generous, and potentially even unnecessary, figure, given that those two animals could provide a decent profit incentive for the many smugglers who exploit this route. Like any black market industry, people will choose the method with the greatest margin at the lowest risk. Therefore, frustrating as enabling powers can be, I am pleased to see one in the Bill allowing for penalties to be looked at through regulations. We all know that you get a tougher sentence for smuggling cigarettes than for smuggling puppies.

The second point relates to the importing of pregnant dogs. In recent years there has been a change in approach as people have realised that smuggling a pregnant dog is a better way to reduce risk and maximise profits, given that the average litter is five to six puppies and with larger breeds having litters of up to 12. Since 2019, the Dogs Trust has taken in 177 pregnant dogs, which demonstrates the escalating nature of the trade. I should declare an interest, as one of those dogs gave birth to my own dog, a charcoal labrador called Tess.

I am pleased to say that Tess now lives an utterly indulged and very happy life, but it has not been so easy for her mother. The professionals at the Dogs Trust believe that, despite her young age, when she came to them from Hungary she was on her second or third litter. She was in a bad way physically and mentally. She was too frightened to go outside for many months and was completely unsocialised. We cannot ever know the exact conditions in which she was kept, but the assumption is that she was locked up or chained up inside for most of her life. It is also possible that she was transported to the UK to give birth, transported back to Hungary to become pregnant again, transported back to the UK and so on. It is a vile merry-go-round, which charities say is on the increase.

It is good that the Bill will prohibit the import of dogs more than 42 days pregnant, but would a complete ban on the commercial movement of pregnant dogs into the UK be more effective? Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the Dogs Trust, a fantastic organisation, I am pleased to say that it succeeded in rehoming Tess’s mother, but it was touch and go and she paid a terrible price in terms of her health and welfare. I am not sure of the circumstances in which it could be deemed necessary to move a pregnant dog for commercial reasons but perhaps the Minister can explain further. I know that she is genuinely committed to animal welfare, personally and in her position in government.

On both my points, the Bill still provides a significant improvement on the current situation. I am with the majority who say, “Let’s just get this done, and get it done unamended”.