Sale of Puppies

Martyn Day Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 213451 relating to the sale of puppies by pet shops and commercial third-party dealers.

The proposed ban is known as Lucy’s law.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, in this immensely popular debate on a petition that collected more than 100,000 signatures in its first 13 days. It now has almost 150,000 signatures, with four months still remaining, making it probably the most popular dog welfare petition that the Government have seen in all time. I congratulate all involved in the writing of the petition and its promotion, including its creator, Beverley Cuddy, who is in the Public Gallery today. The petition is popular not just with the electorate, our constituents, but with Members, almost 100 of whom from all parties—when I last checked—had signed early-day motion 695 on Lucy’s law, and all proudly support the call for an immediate ban on puppies being sold by commercial dealers and pet shops.

Lucy’s law was launched in December 2007 at a Commons reception hosted by vet and campaigner, Marc Abraham, founder of Pup Aid—who is also in the Public Gallery—and supported by the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). Lucy was a Cavalier King Charles spaniel, a victim of the puppy farm system, used for breeding for many years with no regard for her health or welfare.

Media and celebrity support for Lucy’s law has been quite staggering, with titles such as The Mirror, The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Guardian all backing the campaign, as well as mainstream TV shows, such as “The One Show”, ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” and “This Morning”, and “The Wright Stuff”, and Sky News, Channel 4, and Channel 5 all giving support. Popular figures behind the campaign—it is not just politicians and constituents, but many celebrities—include Ricky Gervais, Brian May, Peter Egan, Sue Perkins, Clare Balding, Rachel Riley, Sarah Millican, Eamonn Holmes, Kay Burley, Gail Porter, Deborah Meaden, Jon Richardson, Victoria Stilwell and many others. The campaign is receiving a huge amount of attention.

Significantly, the next generation of social media influencers has also embraced Lucy’s law, with support from the UK’s top vloggers such as Zoella and online giant UNILAD, which has even made its own documentary about the campaign.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I strongly support a ban on third-party puppy and kitten sales. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be very useful for those people getting a dog for the first time to have a basic information pamphlet, pointing to where they can get help? That would do a lot to promote animal welfare.

[Martyn Day]

That is a very worthwhile suggestion. No one should rush into getting a dog or any pet; it should be something people think about in detail. Equally, when they make that decision, they should not make an impulse purchase of any dog from any source.

A ban on third-party sales has also gained much support from the most well-respected animal welfare organisations in the UK and beyond—the list is impressive.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his introduction to the debate. With others, I very much support the campaign behind ensuring a ban on third-party puppy sales. Cats Protection has made the point that such a ban should apply to kittens as well. Does he agree with that?

[Martyn Day]

I was wondering how to find a link to mention my cat Porridge in the debate—the hon. Gentleman has provided it. I think there should be such a ban. Interestingly, the Government consultation was on puppies and kittens, while the petition is clearly about puppies. There is a broader issue there and I support him on that.

The organisations supporting the ban include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Battersea, the Kennel Club—

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his introduction to this important debate. Will he confirm that there has been some misunderstanding out there that this petition would actually prevent charities from helping to move on dogs? That is not the case at all; it would strengthen their hand.

[Martyn Day]

I shall come to that point in my speech, but that is exactly the position as I see it too. I cannot see how rehoming can be confused with illicit dog sales. They are simply not compatible.

To continue the list of organisations, it also includes IFAW—the International Fund for Animal Welfare—Cats Protection, as was mentioned, Mayhew, the Humane Society International, the National Animal Welfare Trust, All Dogs Matter, Pup Aid, CARIAD, or Care and Respect Includes All Dogs, Canine Action UK, the Karlton Index and so on. Lucy’s law is pretty widely supported by just about every relevant organisation.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the debate and everyone on their work in getting all those signatures. Does he agree that one reason for the policy’s popularity is that it not only makes good sense from an animal protection point of view, but it is much easier to enforce than the existing situation? In other words, far more people would be there to enforce a ban—not just the local councils, but the RSPCA, the police and trading standards—so it would be much easier to do so.

[Martyn Day]

I agree with the hon. Lady. She makes a good point, which I shall come on to in my speech. It seems so obvious that enforcing a ban is far easier and cheaper than a licensing system with more bureaucracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that we should have reached a conclusion, and I am sure she has changed her mind since.

[Martyn Day]

Yes, I was intrigued to see the EFRA Committee report. We are covering a lot of old ground, but progress has been made and I welcome the work of the Committee in the early stages.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous with his time. I support the ban, but does he agree that the objection that is sometimes made to it—that the trade would go underground—is wholly bogus? The idea that prospective loving pet owners would suddenly start trawling the dark web is wholly far-fetched and a specious objection.

[Martyn Day]

Indeed. I shall make a similar point later. We cannot compare the seeking out and purchasing of a puppy or any family pet to love with the purchasing of arms, ammunition or drugs on the dark net, as some do. It is a completely different ball game.

A ban was in fact recommended to the Government in a 2014 e-petition debate, by the EFRA Committee in 2016, as we heard, and more recently by the manifesto of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Sadly, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ignored all three calls and favoured a licensing regime instead. Notably, however, a Lucy’s law is also supported by the Institute of Licensing.

[Angela Smith]

For the record, about four or five members of the EFRA Committee voted against those particular recommendations of the 2016 report. As everyone knows, we need an ethical marketplace for the breeding and sale of puppies. Demand far outstrips supply in the UK. Surely, if any such measure were to work—it would be a dramatic measure—it would need to be underpinned by the proper regulation of rehoming organisations and by fully transparent registration and licensing of all organisations that breed or sell dogs. That is not what we have at the moment.

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I shall come on to many of those points as my speech develops, addressing them in turn.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

One of the reasons why a number of people on the EFRA Committee chose not to back the overall recommendations of the 2016 report was the position that was then taken by the RSPCA, one of the country’s great animal welfare organisations. It has, however, since changed its position, and it now supports Lucy’s law, largely as a consequence of campaigning by people such as Marc Abraham and his team. I want to put that on the record—the reasons for the rejection have since gone, and the RSPCA is now very much on board, as I understand it.

[Martyn Day]

That point is not included in my speech, so I am grateful for the additional clarification.

Lucy’s law calls for an immediate ban on all commercial third-party sales of dogs. Commercial means sales as part of a business—for profit, not rescue. Third-party sellers are dealers; they have not bred the dogs themselves and they operate as middlemen between breeders and the buying public. Currently, the Pet Animals Act 1951 requires third-party sellers to be licensed as a pet shop, irrespective of the type of trading premises they sell from.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with third- party sellers is that they create a fog around transparency and accountability? Does he also agree that banning third-party sellers would increase the financial gain for legitimate breeders and reassure dog owners of the legitimate provenance of their pets?

[Martyn Day]

Indeed, it would. What is the problem with third-party sales? The sale of puppies through commercial third-party dealers both sustains and is dependent upon the existence of puppy farms, where puppies are bred for maximum profit and with minimal regard for animal welfare. Currently, around 74 pet shop licences permit the sale of puppies in the UK, although very few high street pet shops sell puppies. But the third-party trade remains significant, with dealers operating from a diverse array of premises including private homes and puppy superstores. It is estimated that some 80,000 puppies may be sold by licensed third-party sellers each year. That legal, licensed puppy trade depends upon a fast transition through the point of sale. The incentives for a rapid turnover encourage purchasers to make impulsive decisions based upon an emotional response.

Puppies are sourced from breeding establishments in the UK and Europe—commonly, Wales, Ireland, Lithuania and Hungary—where output volume is often prioritised over welfare. That has a hugely detrimental impact upon the physical and mental wellbeing of the breeding dogs and their puppies, which are destined to become people’s family pets. The absence of any contract between breeders and the final owner helps to eliminate accountability, results in a dereliction of responsibility and provides no incentive for improvement.

The legitimate market for puppies bred in situations where welfare is a minor consideration contributes to the existence of establishments that fail to meet even the basic needs of abused breeding dogs such as Lucy. Overwhelming scientific research, together with evidence obtained from owners, conclusively demonstrates that this activity seriously harms animal welfare, through the trauma of transportation, the increased risk of exposure to disease, behavioural problems resulting from premature separation from the mother and lack of appropriate socialisation.

Puppies may be born with debilitating inherited diseases that are life limiting or require lifelong medication, and are at a high risk of catching life-threatening canine diseases, such as parvovirus. That often costs buyers hundreds of thousands of pounds in veterinary treatment. It is not uncommon for puppies to die within days or weeks. A sad litany of such examples was highlighted in the personal experiences of those who responded to and commented on Parliament’s digital engagement before this debate.

There are alternatives. My sister purchased her dog 14 years ago through a reputable breeder who had connections with the Kennel Club, and saw the mother in situation. The dog is very happy; it was at the Sunday family dinner last night and is doing well. Everybody needs that kind of family commitment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Was it at the table?

[Martyn Day]

No, but it is trained, which the breeder does not necessarily do and owners have to do themselves.

Poor hygiene standards throughout the chain frequently mean that many puppies are infected with bacteria, viruses and parasites that in some cases can be transmitted to humans, for example rabies in inappropriately vaccinated imported pups. Puppies may exhibit significant behavioural issues such as separation anxiety, house soiling and nervous aggression. It is not known how many puppies die before they are even sold.

The puppy market is very lucrative, which means there are big financial incentives for breeders and sellers to minimise costs to maximise profits. Incredibly, and despite all that, the number of links in the chain means that often it is impossible to determine where the specific problem originated, and therefore extremely rare for any formal action to be taken against breeders or sellers.

The third-party trade via dealers and pet shops is regarded worldwide as a significant welfare issue, with an impact on breeding dogs, puppies and their new owners. Consumers are universally advised to see a puppy interacting with its mother in the place the puppy was born as the most fundamental step towards responsible pet ownership. This advice—rightly promoted by the current Government—is clearly in direct conflict with the ongoing legality of motherless third-party sales.

Today’s main question is, why is a ban necessary? Quite simply, a ban on third-party puppy selling removes the legitimacy of a source where adequate welfare cannot be ensured. That is imperative to assist purchasers to make an informed choice and to encourage responsible buying decisions. As mentioned, it ensures consistency with the Government’s own advice that purchasers should always see puppies with their mother; it aligns with the Government’s objective of improving dog breeding welfare; and it helps to tackle puppy dealing and trafficking.

A ban is vital to incentivise welfare improvements in high-risk commercial dog breeding establishments, through ensuring transparency, accountability and even increased financial gain for breeders. A ban will prevent the sale of puppies who have not been bred to welfare standards recognised by the national and devolved Administrations, and will remove the legitimate market for puppies who are bred in European countries where dog breeding welfare may be inadequately regulated. Ultimately, that will improve consumer confidence in the industry, and transactions would benefit the UK rather than breeders based abroad.

A ban removes the need for transportation from the breeding establishment, eliminates risks posed by exposure to pathogens in vehicles and the sale environment and prevents the transmission of disease between animals originating from different sources. A ban will improve the overall health of the UK dog population, by compelling and incentivising all UK breeders to adopt more responsible breeding practices and by reducing the risk of outbreaks of disease. There may also be a reduction in incidents of dog aggression arising from poor breeding and inadequate socialisation. A ban would reduce the regulatory burden on local authorities.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, in addition to discussing the merits of banning third-party sales, the Government should also place a statutory duty on local authorities to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and give councils sufficient resources to enforce the regulations under it?

[Martyn Day]

I have no problem in supporting that call. It is about a measure of packages; the Lucy’s law ban is the single biggest step towards animal welfare, but other things have to be done, too.

Enforcement action against illegal sellers can be undertaken and shared by various agencies. Illegal activity can be more efficiently tackled at a regional and national level.

What are the consequences? We have discussed many of the positive outcomes for animal welfare that a ban would achieve, so I hope hon. Members will find it helpful for me to address some of the concerns about potential consequences. First, let us deal with enforcement, which has been mentioned a few times. Enforcement is demonstrably more effective against illegal traders. Illegal trading is easier to prove and enables a more definitive and conclusive result, as evidenced by successful past prosecutions against illegal puppy dealers.

A partial ban on third-party puppy sales already exists, because the activity is illegal unless the seller holds a pet shop licence. If a seller is operating illegally, enforcement agencies have a mandate to investigate and prosecute. Licensing, on the other hand, effectively protects sellers if they appear to meet licence conditions, which are basic minimum standards, irrespective of additional welfare issues.

[Angela Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the recently reviewed licensing regulations represent a really serious attempt to significantly improve sale licensing standards? The sector has been grappling for years with enforcement problems by local authorities and the police. Resources are at the heart of the matter. Without resources, any new law will be meaningless.

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about resources. I am not disputing all the good work that has been put into licensing. However, a ban is simply much more effective and more cost-effective to introduce and police.

One of the points raised was about driving the trade underground. Trade can survive underground only if it has a sufficient market. But, unlike sellers of drugs and guns, commercial third-party sales of puppies are wholly dependent upon advertising to attract its customers. Although we commonly see and hear images and videos of puppies being smuggled and trafficked illegally, their route to market must be easily detectable if the ordinary member of the public is able to obtain the product overground, and it must be legal for them to be sold.

If third-party sellers are unable to utilise mainstream advertising channels, puppy buyers would continue to purchase from the most obvious and accessible sources, rather than deliberately seeking out illegal suppliers. The easier it becomes for people to buy puppies responsibly, the more likely they are to follow that path. Research has shown that prospective purchasers almost always aspire to making ethical and responsible choices. As they would have access to puppies from legitimate breeders, they would have no need to seek out illegally operating dealers. By comparison, if third-party sellers continued to be legitimate and licensed, there may be no means for buyers to discriminate between adverts placed by breeders and those placed by dealers. The continued existence of a legal third-party sector would also mask and provide a framework for the illegal trade.

It is worth noting that, if a ban were in place, online purchases from puppy sellers would always have to involve a final transaction, at which the pup must be seen with its mum in the place it was born. True online sales involve a delivery—that is, a third-party sale. As I mentioned, selling animals as a business is already illegal without a pet shop licence, so there is no “gaping loophole” through which a dealer could pose as a rehoming or rescue centre. Under a ban or a licensing regime, concealing commercial activity would be fraud and tax evasion as well as an animal welfare concern, so it would be far easier to police.

It has been suggested that there are too few responsible breeders in the UK to meet the demand for puppies. One of the primary requirements of a good breeder is that they enable puppies to be seen with their mother. There is no evidence to suggest that too few breeders meet that basic requirement. Furthermore, the suggestion that any deficit in supply would inevitably be met by unscrupulous breeders and sellers—either legal or illegal— is not pragmatic. That is a defeatist approach and an acceptance that the law cannot protect dogs in the commercial trade. I do not think we want to see that.

What owners really demand is a physically and mentally healthy puppy, not just any puppy. Banning the third-party sale of dogs may be a catalyst for changing expectations, so that buyers are able to buy a responsibly bred puppy from a legitimate breeder rather than having a huge range of puppies available to purchase immediately from indiscriminate sources.

The apparently inflated demand for certain fashionable breeds, such as the French bulldog, may be artificial. Puppies are being purchased simply because they are available for sale. A market that is saturated with cheap, readily available puppies by third-party dealers is likely to encourage impulse purchasing and significantly reduce demand for more responsibly bred puppies. Removing competition from irresponsible breeders and sellers would increase the market for responsible breeders, so a ban most likely would increase the number of responsibly bred puppies. Even breeders who previously sold through third parties would meet the baseline criterion for a responsible breeder—that puppies can be seen with their mum in the place they were born. I have said that a few times, and it is fundamental to the debate.

Requiring all dog breeders to sell their puppies directly would result in more responsible breeding and purchasing behaviour, as there would be no chain to confuse or cloud the process. Third-party sellers are only a distribution channel, which prevents buyers from witnessing breeding dogs and their conditions, so a ban would not need to affect the number of puppies that are bred. Lucy’s law is vital to any attempt to reform dog breeding and improve welfare. It is clear that if no attempt is made to restrict the legal market for puppies to responsible breeders, measures to improve dog welfare—those to do with genetic and breed-related health, breeding, rearing and selling practices—are unlikely to succeed.

That brings me to the question of why robust licensing is not an alternative. It is impossible to ensure the welfare of puppies sold through third parties by imposing robust licensing that still permits the activity to take place. As I explained, the process of puppies being sold by third parties is inherently damaging, so the aim of protecting animals from harm by licensing could not be met even if licence conditions were adhered to. If the welfare of animals sold under the licensing regime were little better than those sold illegally, regulation of the trade would not offer any real benefits.

Licensing third-party sellers would also fail to tackle welfare problems prior to sale, including in breeding establishments. A sufficiently robust regime of licensing and inspection would probably deter unscrupulous sellers from applying for a licence, so it would not prevent that part of the trade from going underground. It is considered possible that third-party dealers may attempt to masquerade as rescue centres under a ban. That would be equally possible under a robust licensing regime.

There is no evidence to suggest that a robust regime of licensing and inspection would be any easier or cheaper to implement than a ban. Enforcement of a ban would involve only detecting illegal activity and implementing sanctions against those engaged in it. Enforcement of a robust licensing regime would in addition involve monitoring businesses’ compliance, which would require highly trained inspectors and multiple site visits. The Government’s objective is to reduce rather than increase the regulatory burden for small businesses and local authorities. That does not fit comfortably with imposing and enforcing detailed, mandatory model conditions.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is completely and utterly unrealistic to expect cash-strapped and time-stretched councils to tackle businesses with full-time staff who will do their best to hide any criminality and frustrate any enforcement action that is taken?

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, which has been made a few times already and cannot be stressed enough. That is another reason why a ban would be far easier and more cost-effective.

The well-documented suffering that arises during puppy dealing by third parties demonstrates that those engaged in the trade have little regard for the wellbeing of the animals in their care. Without consistent monitoring and severe penalties for breaches, it is unlikely that demanding licence regulations would be complied with. The resources that would be needed to exert any sort of control are disproportionate to the small welfare improvements that may result from the process. There is no evidence that third-party sellers would be less likely to comply with a ban than with a licensing requirement, or that the number of illegal third-party sellers would increase if a ban were introduced.

Let me finish by considering the implications of a ban not being introduced immediately. Continuing to license the third-party puppy trade would legitimise and endorse animal suffering and leave consumers vulnerable to significant emotional and financial consequences. As long as third-party sellers create demand for a large number of cheap, intensively bred puppies, welfare problems will remain in high-risk breeding establishments. The regulation of breeding establishments cannot be improved where the incentives for substandard practice exceed the penalties.

Permitting the sale of puppies bred in Europe, both legally and illegally, under low welfare conditions and with little thought for genetic and physical health may deter breeders in England and the rest of the UK from having regard to those things. Continued competitive pressure from sellers who supply cheaper puppies without the constraint of having to adhere to demanding regulatory requirements may result in some responsible UK breeders reducing or even ceasing breeding activity. It may even reduce demand for responsibly bred puppies and increase the market for irresponsible dealers and third-party traders.

An immediate ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and other third-party commercial dealers would be a major step forward in putting an end to unnecessary animal cruelty and would help to eradicate irresponsible forms of dog breeding and selling such as puppy farming, smuggling and trafficking. There can be no doubt that Lucy’s law would help to protect breeding dogs, puppies and owners by making all breeders accountable and transparent, and ensuring consistent adherence to the Government’s advice that purchasers should see the puppies they intend to buy interacting with their mother in the place they were born. A ban on dealing puppies for profit could only raise welfare standards, and one is needed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

It was a privilege to open today’s e-petition debate. I am grateful to all the Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members who have taken part in what has been a consensual debate. I was happy with many of the Minister’s comments, particularly that there was merit in exploring the issue further. I look forward to the consultation in due course. I genuinely feel that Lucy’s law would be the single biggest step towards ending unnecessary animal cruelty and reforming dog breeding welfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 213451 relating to the sale of puppies by pet shops and commercial third-party dealers.