Animal Abusers

Perran Moon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

I think that is a separate issue, but legislation on XL bullies already exists and it needs to be properly enforced.

Animal abuse convictions are most often made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sexual abuse is covered by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. An individual convicted under the Animal Welfare Act can face up to five years in prison and can be subject to a court-issued disqualification order preventing them from owning animals for the rest of their life, although the court decides the specific terms of the order.

The experts I spoke to in preparation for this debate—I thank Claire McParland, Dr David Martin and Mark Randell—agree that the current legislative framework is a significant improvement on the previous legislation, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime. The Government note in their response that all

“offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are currently stored on the Police National Computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations”

and with members of the public in specific circumstances. However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive.

Under the current system, the reporting of suspected offences is an inevitable challenge. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventive. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they may assume that the authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begins to investigate a report, it can request information from the police about any previous convictions, but that process can be slow and there is no guarantee that the police will release the information. A dedicated national register would, of course, make that easier.

Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Dr David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that the collaboration between the police and the RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales. Local teams know who to call when they have a query or come across animal abuse in their day-to-day activities. On the other hand, Mark Randell, a former police officer who has spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, said that identifying animal abuse is not standardised across police forces, and understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across the country. We should consider standardised training so that there is not a postcode lottery.

Despite the difficulties, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year. Although disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, the petition requests that bans be made automatic upon conviction. That might reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy, we evaluate proposals for punishing crimes based not simply on how effectively they prevent recurrence, but on whether the punishment is proportionate, and it is not clear that automatic lifetime bans are proportionate.

An automatic ban has no regard for whether the perpetrator is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, they could be in a coercive or controlling relationship, or could themselves be a victim of abuse, which might drive them to inflict harm on animals. In such cases, it is harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, so an automatic ban may be disproportionate.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Across Cornwall, there are dozens of cases of animal abuse every year and animal abuse is a blight on our duchy, so I welcome the principle of an abuser register. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not just add perpetrators to the register, but ensure that the threat of custodial sentences is strong enough that they know they will be punished for their crimes?

[Jacob Collier]

I agree. The threat of prosecution was strengthened by the 2006 Act, which has aided in preventing abuse. When the Government review the animal welfare legislation, they should take that into consideration.

A lifetime ban ignores the possibility that offenders may change their ways. In this country, we believe that those who break the law can be rehabilitated into law-abiding society. Imagine a case in which a child or young adult commits abuse against an animal. What if they are locking that animal in a cupboard to protect it from a violent parent? A lifetime ban would mean that they would be unable to have such a pet in their retirement, which feels disproportionate.

When the argument is considered from that perspective, the discretionary nature of disqualification orders appears to be a strength: judges have the freedom to consider the offender’s circumstances, which may have motivated the crime. None the less, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent recurrence. Guidelines could be changed to make them time-limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed.

As for the national register, the RSPCA has repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for it to access the history of an alleged offender. How the register works in practice must be considered carefully. Bea wants the register to be accessible to appropriate organisations, but not the general public, which would avoid giving rise to animal abuse vigilantism, the likes of which we have seen spreading on social media in other cases.

Alongside access, there is also the question of what information the register should contain. A public register may be less effective if it is simply a snapshot of past offending. As I noted earlier, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act are only part of the picture, and a register of convictions is not as detailed as the archive of RSPCA intelligence. Information must be comprehensive and up to date if it is to be truly effective for relevant agencies.

A more useful alternative might therefore be a disclosure scheme akin to Clare’s law, which enables police to disclose information about an individual’s history of violence or abuse where there is a credible risk to their partner. That scheme is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons if they do not wish to make a disclosure. The family of Holly Bramley have been campaigning for an animal abuse register and police disclosure scheme since her tragic murder in 2023. Holly’s killer was a prolific abuser and killer of animals and he used the threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence cannot be ignored, and it is key to this debate. We owe it to Holly to take action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all my constituents and everybody else who signed the e-petition. Of course, I also thank Bea, who is in the Public Gallery today, for bringing this issue to light.

This topic matters deeply to people across the country, including in my constituency. People expect those who cause suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal from ever being put at risk again. At home, our dog Foggy is a treasured member of our family, and that is how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us, they trust us and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care.

I recently received a letter about today’s debate from a 13-year-old constituent, who is worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could go on to have another animal and cannot understand why someone who has already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, not because it came from a young person—although that certainly made it all the more striking—but because it put the matter so plainly: why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?

As we have heard, important powers are already available to the courts under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. Increasing the maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question: is the current system clear, consistent and practical enough to stop people who have been banned simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal? A conviction may be recorded and a disqualification order may be made, but what happens when someone approaches a rescue centre, a breeder or another organisation to take on an animal? How does that organisation know whether the person standing in front of them has a history of serious cruelty or has been banned by a court from keeping animals? At present, the answer seems far too uncertain.

[Perran Moon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we surely need to close the loophole whereby banned owners can give their pets or farm animals to their wife or husband to own, and still live with them?

[Lee Pitcher]

Absolutely; there is no place for legal loopholes like that in our country, where we love our animals so much.

The Government have referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. I recognise that there are important safeguards around personal information and data protection that we must be aware of, but a record held somewhere in the system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person acquiring another animal. That is the point behind the petition, and it is a point that we should take very seriously. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including through action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, trail hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the animal protection provided after a cruelty conviction is strong enough in practice.

I believe there is a serious case for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme for those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans. It would not need to be a public database. This should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information; it should be a proportionate safeguarding measure, with clear rules on who can make a check, when they can do so, and what information they can receive. It can be managed, is what I am saying.

Animal rescue and rehoming organisations, veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether an individual is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in that person’s care. We rightly recognise that information sometimes needs to be shared to protect children, vulnerable adults and the wider public. I believe we should be willing to consider a careful and proportionate approach that protects animals from people with a proven record of cruelty or neglect.

The petition calls for automatic life bans following convictions for animal abuse or neglect. I understand why it has attracted such strong support. For the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty, the future protection of animals must be at the heart of the court’s decision. There should be a strong presumption that someone who has shown such serious cruelty should not be entrusted with the care of an animal again. Courts must retain the ability to consider the individual circumstances of the case, but where a serious offender receives only a short ban, or no ban at all, there should be clear reasons for that decision.

This is not simply about punishment; it is about prevention. Animal cruelty can be part of a wider pattern of harm, as we have heard. It can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household, which makes early identification and effective safeguarding even more important, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at what more can be done. Will the Government consider consulting on a national animal welfare safeguarding disclosure scheme, so that responsible organisations can check whether a prospective owner has been convicted of serious cruelty or banned from keeping animals previously? Will the Government consider whether the law should create a stronger expectation of lengthy and, where appropriate, lifetime ownership bans in serious and repeated cases? Will they also publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last, how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?

My 13-year-old constituent is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a system that works, before another animal is intentionally harmed. That is a basic test of whether our animal welfare laws are doing what the public expect them to do. For my 13-year-old constituent, for Bea, for all those who signed the petition and for every wonderful, beautiful animal we love, we should always try to meet that test.