Animal Abusers

Debate between Stephen Morgan and John Hayes

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and thank him for the thoughtful way he set out the issues raised in the petition. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions on establishing a public register for animal abusers and the automatic ownership ban.

The petition has attracted significant public support, with more than 235,000 signatures, clearly demonstrating how strongly people across the country feel about protecting animals. I commend the tireless campaigning of Bea and her supporters. As a dog lover—and the owner of 11-year-old labradoodle Albert Attlee, who brings real joy to my family and me—I share the petitioners’ deep concern about animal cruelty. People want to see animals treated with care and respect.

We are a nation of animal lovers, and I represent a party with a proud track record of delivering meaningful protections for animals. From introducing the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to strengthening safeguards for domestic animals through the Animal Welfare Act, Labour has consistently led the way in placing animal welfare at the heart of the Government agenda, because we believe that how we treat animals reflects the kind of society we are.

However, we must also confront the harsh reality that animal abuse still occurs often and in deeply distressing ways that shock the conscience and undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Cases of neglect, cruelty and deliberate harm continue to surface, reminding us that the protections we have in place, while important, are not always enough to prevent suffering or deter repeat offending. That reality drives the strength of feeling behind this petition. Where abuse occurs, we want animals to be protected, offenders to be held accountable and to make sure that further harm is not caused. The challenge is not whether to act, but how best to achieve lasting protection for animals.

I will first address the proposal for automatic lifetime bans on animal ownership. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, courts can impose disqualification orders preventing individuals from owning, keeping or caring for animals. In the most serious cases, these bans can be imposed for life. It is for the courts to determine the appropriate sanction based on the specific facts of each case. Judicial discretion is not a weakness in the legislation; it is a strength. It enables courts to impose the strongest possible restrictions where they are needed, while ensuring fairness and proportionality. Introducing an automatic lifetime ban in all cases would remove that discretion.

I now turn to the proposal for a public register of animal abusers. I understand why there is public support for the idea, and the reassurance it is intended to provide, but there are already systems in place to record and share this information when it is right to do so. Convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are recorded on the police national computer, and enforcement bodies such as the police and local authorities have access to that information.

There are also established disclosure mechanisms that allow the police to share relevant information with those who need it. That means relevant information can be used where it is needed for licensing, safeguarding or public protection. A publicly accessible register, however, could create serious risks, including the potential for harassment and misuse of personal data. The more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the right time.

I also recognise the concerns raised by campaigns such as Holly’s law and Ruby’s law, which Members have raised today. They speak to a serious issue: the link between animal abuse, domestic abuse and coercive control. The Government take that link very seriously. Statutory guidance under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises that pets can be used to control, coerce, threaten or distress a victim. DEFRA is supporting wider, cross-Government work in this area, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I assure Members that I will continue that cross-Government work.

Our focus is on better awareness, appropriate information-sharing, pet fostering, veterinary awareness and stronger microchipping safeguards. That is why the right information must reach the right people at the right time through lawful and targeted safeguarding routes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence, given that I was not here at the beginning. He is right that the sharing of information is critical among all the agencies that deal with domestic abuse and animal cruelty, but the Government may need to weave this into their bigger piece of work, which he will be aware of, on risk—dealing with risk in a rather different way, reinforcing some of the existing guidance and possibly even statute. We spoke about Holly’s law, which does not necessarily need to be primary legislation, but does need to have statutory force. Statutory guidance may be the answer in this respect. I do not prejudge that; I simply put it on the record for the Minister to discuss with his compatriots in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

[Stephen Morgan]

The right hon. Member is a tireless champion on these issues, having met the former Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office and written to Baroness Hayman following his business question last year. I assure him that officials are continuing to work across Government on the points that came out of his meeting with the Minister, and I will certainly take away the points that he just raised.