Sale of Puppies

Debate between Martyn Day and Angela Smith

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.