Animal Welfare

Debate between Paul Monaghan and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

The inquiry we are debating was conducted by a Sub-Committee of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I was very pleased to participate as a member of it. We ordered our detailed report to be published on 2 November 2016, following scrutiny of 256 items of published evidence, seven evidence-gathering sessions and three site visits. I am very grateful to a number of organisations, including Pup Aid and the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for the briefings they have provided for today’s debate.

I should say at the outset that the inquiry caused me, and I believe other members of the Committee, significant distress from listening to accounts of serious animal cruelty and, indeed, viewing at first hand animals in recovery shelters and those held in horrific conditions in puppy farms. The treatment and the plight of many of the animals we saw is simply unacceptable. As other hon. Members have done, I want to focus on two aspects of the inquiry: first, the recommendation that an immediate ban be placed on the third-party sale of dogs; and secondly, the recommendation that the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences in England be increased to five years in prison.

This inquiry learned that dogs are bred, sold and traded every single day. While the scale of the market for puppies in England is largely unknown, estimates suggest that somewhere between 700,000 and 1.9 million dogs are traded each year, with a street value of somewhere between £100 million and £300 million per annum. The public purchase puppies from a variety of sources, including unlicensed breeders and back-street traders, commercial licensed breeders and pet shops, illegal importers, Kennel Club registered breeders and excellent rescue organisations. Unlicensed breeders, commercial licensed breeders and illegal importers are the sources that caused us concern. We identified a significant variation in the quality of puppies, their viability and the welfare problems experienced by dogs from these sources.

The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 set out the licensing regime under which local authorities license dog breeding establishments in England. The legislation states that anyone carrying on the business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence irrespective of the number of litters. However, owing to a lack of clarity, many local authorities in England have interpreted the legislation to mean that a licence is required only for those breeding five or more litters during a 12-month period. As a consequence, a large number of breeders are considered to fall outside the current licensing regime, which means there is no record of the dogs being born and no enforcement of welfare standards.

DEFRA’s recent consultation on its review of animal licensing establishments noted that there was confusion about the threshold and about how it should be used in practice. DEFRA has proposed clarifying the threshold at which a breeding establishment requires to be licensed, suggesting that in the future the requirement for a licence would be applied to

“(a) anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs; or (b) anyone producing three or more litters from their dogs in a 12-month period.”

Witnesses told us that they want a lower threshold. In fact, experts in animal welfare argued that anyone breeding two or more litters per year should be required to register as a breeder. The view is that while one litter might be unintended, anyone producing more than one litter a year is clearly running a business breeding dogs for sale, and I agree with that opinion. Witnesses also told us that those falling below this threshold should be registered with their local authority. For example, the National Companion Animal Focus Group told us that a registration scheme would

“ensure licensing authorities are aware of breeding dogs in their area, and can monitor when they fall into the definitions of commercial breeding”.

I also agree with that opinion. It is vital to bring transparency to ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place. For that reason, the Committee recommended that anyone breeding two litters or more per year should be licensed as a breeder, and that those falling below the threshold of a licensed breeder should be registered with their local authority.

Turning to commercial breeders, current requirements dictate that anyone who carries on a business of breeding dogs for sale must hold a licence from their local authority and meet certain conditions, such as providing suitable accommodation, food, water and bedding. Dog breeders are supposed to keep records to show compliance with those requirements. Puppies bred at licensed commercial breeding establishments are required to be sold at those premises or at a licensed pet shop. This is where the problems arise. Undoubtedly there are very good commercial breeders, but in evidence we encountered far too many examples of those requirements being ignored, with puppies being bred in substandard conditions on an industrial scale. Some of those establishments house as many as 200 breeding bitches. The cruelty and lack of care and attention was self-evident. In evidence, the Minister acknowledged that enforcement of the licensing regime was a “mixed picture”, with local authorities placing different levels of emphasis on it. That is an understatement.

We call for improvements in two areas in particular: the current legislation and licensing conditions, and the enforcement of the licensing regime. The current enforcement of the licensing regime is simply unsatisfactory. While some local authorities have developed expertise in animal welfare, the overwhelming majority of English local authorities lack any suitably qualified inspectors. We believe that a national inspectorate, which local authorities could call upon, would enable expertise to develop, bring consistency to the licensing process and support local authorities in enforcing the licensing regime, undertaking inspections and dealing with complaints.

In respect of illegal importers, we found that puppies are being imported for commercial purposes under the non-commercial trade rules that were set up to allow the free movement of people’s pets through the pet travel scheme. Witnesses told us that loopholes originating in the UK mean that the pet travel scheme is abused by unscrupulous dealers and traders. Puppies are being moved as pets and then traded commercially at the final destination. Between the introduction of PETS in 2011 and 2015, there was an 850% increase in the number of dogs entering the UK from Lithuania alone. From Hungary the increase was 761% and from Romania it was 2,055%. As hon. Members have noted, puppies imported in that way are routinely bred in horrific conditions, are taken from their mother when too young and endure long journeys of over 1,000 miles. The welfare of those animals is severely compromised and many do not survive the journey.

During our inquiry, witnesses identified three areas of concern: the age at which puppies were allowed into the UK; a lack of enforcement checks by Border Force; and poor intelligence sharing between UK enforcement agencies. When buying a puppy, members of the public want to buy a happy, healthy animal from a reputable source; however, disreputable dealers are selling animals for huge profits without regard for their health and wellbeing, and leaving families with congenitally unviable, sick animals.

Witnesses told us that the Pet Animals Act 1951 was “thoroughly outdated” and that there is lack of clarity about what is and is not licensable activity. They had differing opinions on how to deal with current problems around the sale of animals. Some called for increased regulation, while others called for a ban on third party sales. On that point the RSPCA bizarrely changed its position several times within the period of the inquiry. The charities Dogs Trust and Blue Cross lobbied Ministers directly in ways that appeared to promote their narrow business interests rather than animal welfare, and disappointingly have chosen not to answer my subsequent correspondence seeking clarity on their position.

On this issue there is no excuse or room for implausible arguments. The Committee’s recommendation to ban third-party sales is essential if unlicensed breeding, commercial breeding and illegal importation are to be brought to an abrupt end. Removing the opportunity to sell abused animals would address the issue. The advice to the public is simple: never buy a puppy that is not with its mother. Those ignoring that advice are supporting horrific puppy farming and regimes of cruelty that are of epic proportions.

I am coming on to my conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Turning to sentencing policy, the sub-committee found that England and Wales has the lowest maximum custodial sentences for animal cruelty in Europe. Scotland currently has a maximum sentence double that of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland is to be applauded for recently increasing its maximum limit to five years. Our witnesses expressed grave concern that sentencing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are too low, neither recognising the seriousness of the offence nor acting as a significant deterrent.

The Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare noted that sentencing powers in England under the Animal Welfare Act are some of the weakest within the international community. The RSPCA noted increasing inconsistency in sentences available in differing animal legislation in England. For example, the Law Commission recently recommended the imprisonment for up to two years for cruelty to wildlife. Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a person can be sentenced to three years if their dog injures a guide dog, but for only six months if they beat their dog to death with a baseball bat in front of their children in their living room. If the same individual then dumped the corpse illegally, they could be sentenced to five years for fly tipping. If they stole the baseball bat, they could receive a sentence of seven years for shoplifting. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.

DEFRA responded to the inquiry report on 27 January 2017. The response began:

“We have the best animal welfare in the world and we are a nation of animal lovers.”

I say to the Minister that in fact England has some of the poorest animal welfare in the world. I have seen it. If he really wants to show respect to animal lovers in England, of whom there are very many, he must implement the Select Committee’s recommendations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I ask those on the Front Bench to try to stick to nine minutes, otherwise Members in the second debate will not be able to speak.