Friday 29 December 2023

Government Response to Petition

The Petition is now closed and reached over 10,000 signatures, calling on the numbers of companion animals euthanised in England to be recorded and published:
Currently there is no accurate data on companion animal euthanasia. We want requirements for veterinarians, rescue organisations and pounds to record and report details on companion animal euthanasia including why, where, gender, breed, age, and breeder information.
This should then be published by the Government.
Government responses to previous petitions have failed to acknowledge that this data is needed.
A large number of companion animals are at risk of euthanasia and/or euthanised due to economic restraints, behaviour issues, lack of rescue spaces and treatable health conditions
Mandatory recording requirements would provide information that can be used to put in place measures to help reduce future risks of euthanasia and provide data leading to awareness and action on areas of concern to the public, such as abandonment, bites and behaviour.
Change does not happen without evidence.
#TuksLaw


Gov Response:
We are not planning to impose new euthanasia reporting requirements on veterinarians, rescue organisations and kennels.

As outlined in previous responses to similar petitions on this issue, making a decision to euthanise an animal is often a complex, emotional and challenging decision, particularly when that animal is a much-loved family pet. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 ensures there are safeguards in place to protect the welfare of animals, including those being euthanised.

Advice about euthanasia is laid out in the guidance underpinning the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, which all veterinary surgeons practising in the UK must adhere to. We have not seen evidence that veterinary surgeons are not adhering to the Code in respect of carrying out euthanasia.

Euthanasia is an important means to help protect animal welfare by being able to relieve suffering. Whilst this is the primary reason for euthanasia, a veterinary surgeon must also take account of the owners’ wishes and other circumstances.

A reporting requirement carries a considerable resource burden on the sector. We regularly meet with stakeholders to understand issues and trends that affect the companion animal sector. We will continue to do so and remain of the view that the case for a new reporting requirement as called for in this petition has not been established.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Friday 22 December 2023

XL Bully type ban - update

22nd December 2023: A court hearing took place before Mr Justice Lane: The King (on application of Licence Me Group) V Secretary of State for DEFRA. An Interim Injunction was applied for and was not granted. Permission for a Judicial Review hearing was granted and this is expected to follow in January.

Also:

19th December 2023: A further Statutory Instrument (new law) has been laid, it applies to England and Wales and part of it is in reference to XL Bully type dogs held by rescue and rehoming organisations

It can be viewed in full here - Statutory Instrument 1407 2023

DEFRA have said that rescue and rehoming organisations can apply for a Certificate of Exemption to keep an XL Bully dog from 31 December. The dog must have been held on or before 31 October 2023 and applications must be sent by 15 January 2024.

Dogs obtained after 31 October 2023:
If an XL Bully dog was obtained after 31 October 2023, the rescue or rehoming organisation cannot apply for a Certificate of Exemption.





Friday 15 December 2023

Petition Signatures Needed - XL Bully TYPE's in Rescues

Please sign this Government Petition HERE

The XL Bully Ban applies to a 'type' of dog - affecting many dogs in rescue and rehoming organisations.

Dogs identified as being a XL Bully Type must be rehomed by 31st December 2023 or put to death, placing enormous pressure and heart-breaking situations on all those who care for them.



Petition Text:

Delay the ban on rehoming and owning XL Bully dogs for 18 months

XL Bully dogs cannot be rehomed after 31/12/23, and will be illegal to own without an exemption certificate from 1/2/24. As a result many Bully dogs are being abandoned or placed in rescue. We want more time for owners to rehome or get exemptions, to avoid dogs being euthanised unnecessarily.

The dogs in rescue are not there through choice. They are there due to abusive owners or neglectful owners, or because the implications of the ban have forced people to choose between their home and their beloved dog. These dogs do not deserve to die and these dogs do not deserve to live out the last 2 months of their lives in kennels. If you extend the amnesty period for them 18 months they may be able to get exemption certificates and find forever homes. They are sentient beings.



Thursday 30 November 2023

Contact Your MP-Upcoming Dog Ban




Sir Christopher Chope MP tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM 114) on 27th November - Please ask your MP to sign in support.
Please contact Your MP and ask them to add their signature to Early Day Motion 114 in support of this motion.



The new law is affecting countless dogs across England and Wales, many in rescue shelters where they cannot be re-homed after the 31st December deadline.

Responsible owners are expected to work out for themselves whether or not their own dog is a designated xl Bully type of dog, completely ridiculous, facing potential criminal proceedings in the future, the legislation has been rushed through, with no parliamentary debate to examine the detail and full impact.

The EDM relates to Statutory Instrument No 164 2023 - the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order, SI No 1204 2023 adds the XL Bully type to the primary legislation from 1991, which currently bans four types of dog.





Sunday 26 November 2023

XL Bully Official Definition updated by DEFRA

The description issued has been updated and is now including a video from the Blue Cross demonstrating how to measure your dog is now included - 

Official definition of an XL Bully dog - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Applying to England and Wales - currently not Scotland and Northern Ireland although this may change in the future.

Height is an important factor: if your dog is smaller than the height specified in the Government’s definition then they are not an American Bully XL, and you don’t need to look at any other aspects in the definition. The height should be measured from the ground to the withers (which means the point of the body immediately behind the neck, at the top of the shoulders), not any higher point on the dog.  
The Government has defined an American XL Bully as: 
  • Adult male from 20in (51 cm) at the withers 
  • Adult female from 19in (48cm) at the withers 


The ban only applies to XL Bully dogs. There are other established breeds such as those recognised by the UK Kennel Club that may meet some of the characteristics of the XL Bully breed type. These are not within scope of the ban. 

A suspected XL Bully breed type does not need to fit the physical description perfectly. If your dog meets the minimum height measurements and a substantial number of the characteristics in the official definition, it could be considered an XL Bully breed type.

If you think your dog meets the minimum height measurements and has a substantial amount of the physical characteristics set out in the official definition, your dog may be in scope of the ban. This includes if it was not sold as an XL Bully.


Use the official definition of an XL Bully to check if your dog is an XL Bully. You’ll need to check the dog’s physical characteristics such as its size and height. It’s up to the owner or keeper to self-identify whether a dog may be an XL Bully.

Defra recommends taking a precautionary approach. If you’re not sure if your dog is an XL Bully, you should prepare for the ban on XL Bully dogs. This includes puppies that may grow up to be an XL Bully.

The ban only applies to XL Bully dogs. There are other established breeds, such as those recognised by the UK Kennel Club, that may meet some of the characteristics of the XL Bully breed type. These are not within scope of the ban.

A suspected XL Bully breed type does not need to fit the physical description perfectly. If your dog meets the minimum height measurements and a substantial number of the characteristics in the official definition, it could be considered an XL Bully breed type.

If you think your dog meets the minimum height measurements and has a substantial amount of the physical characteristics set out in the official definition, your dog may be in scope of the ban. This includes if it was not sold as an XL Bully.

Enforcement officers should use the PDF version of the official definition of an XL Bully dog. 

Photographs DEFRA: - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/655cb2e8544aea000dfb31ca/Official_definition_of_an_XL_Bully_dog__for_enforcement_officers_.pdf


Tuesday 7 November 2023

Extension of Breed Specific Legislation

DEFRA:



Relating currently to England and Wales

These changes will come into force in 2 stages. Full info can be found on the Government website here
From 31 December 2023 it will be against the law to:
  • sell an XL Bully dog
  • abandon an XL Bully dog
  • give away an XL Bully dog
  • breed from an XL Bully dog
  • have an XL Bully in public without a lead and muzzle
From 1 February 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own an XL Bully in England and Wales unless you have a Certificate of Exemption for your dog.
You will need to adhere to strict rules such as microchipping your dog and keeping it on a lead and muzzled when in public.
You will also need to neuter your dog. If your dog is less than one year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered by 31 December 2024.
If your dog is older than one year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered by 30 June 2024. We recommend that you arrange for your dog to be neutered as soon as possible to ensure that you meet these deadlines.

Check if your dog is an XL Bully dog

Use the Official definition of an XL Bully dog to identify if your dog may be an XL Bully. This involves checking the dog’s physical characteristics such as its size and height.

We recommend taking a precautionary approach. If you’re not sure if you have an XL Bully dog, you should comply with all new requirements for this dog type. This includes puppies that may grow up to be an XL Bully dog.

Keeping an XL Bully dog

If you want to keep your dog after the ban, you must apply for a Certificate of Exemption.

You will have until 31 January 2024 to apply for this exemption.

Applications will be subject to a £92.40 application fee, to cover administration costs.

To keep an XL Bully dog you must ensure it is:

  • microchipped
  • kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in public
  • kept in a secure place so it cannot escape

You will also need to neuter your dog. If your dog is less than one year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered by 31 December 2024. If your dog is older than one year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered by 30 June 2024. We recommend that you arrange for your dog to be neutered as soon as possible to ensure that you meet these deadlines.

As the owner, you must also:

  • be over 16 years old
  • take out insurance against your dog injuring other people - this is provided through Dogs Trust Membership
  • be able to show the Certificate of Exemption when asked by a police officer or a council dog warden, either at the time or within 5 days

Defra will provide more information on how to apply for an exemption for an XL Bully dog soon.



Friday 20 October 2023

Brief Parliamentary debate on American XL Bully

On 19th October Dr Neil Hudson MP asked DEFRA the following question: 

What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on introducing the proposed ban on American Bully XL dogs?


The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Dr Thérèse Coffey):
The Prime Minister made a decision about introducing the proposed ban on American XL Bully dogs, recognising the horrific consequences of recent dog attacks and the disproportionate amount of those being undertaken by such dogs. We are working at pace on the legislation, and importantly on how it will be put into practice, and I hope to say more on that soon.

Dr Hudson:
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. As a veterinary surgeon, I strongly agree with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State that we need to ban the dangerous American XL Bully dog as soon as possible to keep people and other animals safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in parallel to this necessary urgent action, we need to undertake important work with the public on responsible dog breeding, responsible dog ownership and better training and socialising of dogs as part of a holistic, long-term solution to dog attacks?

Dr Coffey:
My hon. Friend has great credibility in this field, given his professional experience as a vet. I understand that many owners of XL Bully dogs are passionate about their animals—their pets. That is why we are working at pace, but taking our time to get right the definitions and the transition period that we anticipate. It is important that all dog owners work to make sure that their dogs behave and have appropriate training. That is why we established a taskforce that includes dog welfare charities. We expect it to respond to us by the end of the year, and we will potentially take forward some of its recommendations.

Jim Shannon MP for Strangford:
As someone who has had a pet dog all my life and still does, I am conscious that some of those who own American XL Bully dogs think that their dogs are integral and safe, but many in the general public see them as a danger and have fear. Is the Secretary of State’s intention, as this process goes forward in Westminster, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the police, in particular, to ensure that the law and the recommendations that come out of this place can be shared with them?

Dr Coffey:
The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise owners’ concerns where they believe that they have very good dogs. That is to some extent accommodated already in the legislation that has evolved since 1991. On working with other nations, the law—the primary legislation—will apply in both England and Wales by default, but we are working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration on potential moves to make this a UK-wide approach.

Ruth Jones MP for Newport West:
I listened carefully to the answers the Secretary of State gave to both hon. Members, but I am still not reassured that she has the planned legislation in place to ban XL Bully dogs effectively. Is she satisfied that we have the kennel space across the UK, enough vets to make assessments, and clear rules and legislation in place to make the ban effective?

Dr Coffey:
The hon. Lady asks a fair question. The legislation has evolved since 1991, with amendments made to the primary legislation in 1997 and in the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. In that, there is a combination of work with the police in particular and with local councils and, of course, the judicial system. We have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to take the matter forward. I want to ensure that the legislation is right. I am expecting to present two statutory instruments to make it effective, with one bringing the ban into effect and the other providing the transition element and some of the finer details that still need to be completed.


Wednesday 18 October 2023

Government Petition receives huge response:

Over half a million people have now signed a Government Petition, the Government have yet to give a written response and all petitions which exceed 100,000 signatures are considered for parliamentary debate - a response is due.

The Petition can be viewed and signed here.




The text reads as below:

Bad owners are to blame not the breed - don't ban the XL bully.
I believe that the XL bully is a kind, beautiful natured breed that loves children and people in general, and are very loyal and loving pets.
An XL bully is a "Heinz 57", a mixture of different breeds, so if you ban them then this will have implications for cross breeds of dog because nobody can be sure on the breed specifics. They are all different sizes and shapes. Just because a dog is big and muscular doesn't mean it can be labelled an XL bully, it is unfair to do this.

It is also a well-known fact that how a dog acts is a reflection of the owner's actions. Bad owners should be punished, not the breed of dog – hold bad owners accountable.


Wednesday 27 September 2023

DEFRA Statement - American Bully XL Ban:

Announcement on 15th September from Government, as below:


On the back of a number of shocking ‘American XL Bully’ attacks, the Environment Secretary will urgently convene experts to define the ‘American XL bully’ breed type in the next week.

This is a vital first step towards adding it to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

This group will include police, canine and veterinary experts, and animal welfare stakeholders.

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey said:

Dog attacks are devastating for victims and their families and it is clear that more now needs to be done to stop them and protect the public. That is why we are taking decisive action to ban the American XL Bully.

This is on top of the work the Government has been doing for some time with the police and local authorities to encourage responsible dog ownership and make sure the full force of the law is being applied.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a definition of the ‘American XL Bully’ breed type needs to be specified – including clear assessment criteria for enforcement authorities – in order to impose a ban. The Government must then lay a Statutory Instrument to add it to the list of dogs banned under the Act. This will make it an offence to own, breed, gift or sell an XL bully. We will do this by the end of the year.

We need to safely manage the existing population of these dogs, therefore there will be a transition period. Further details on how the transition period will work will be provided in due course. Current XL Bully dog owners do not need to take any action at this stage however, if XL Bully owners do not come forward during the transition period, they will be committing a criminal offence if they are subsequently found to be keeping one of these dogs.

Owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control are already breaking the law, and we already have a full range of powers to apply penalties to them. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, people can be put in prison for up to 14 years, be disqualified from ownership or their dangerous dogs can be euthanised.

Further detail on next steps for developing a ban and information for owners will be provided in due course.

Tuesday 26 September 2023

Government to ban American Bully XL


On the 10th September Suella Braverman, Home Secretary announced online that she had commissioned urgent advice on banning the American Bully XL. 

The on the 15th September Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared that the American Bully XL will be banned by the end of the year - 2023.

DEFRA have said they will lay a Statutory Instrument to add the American XL Bully to the current list of dogs banned.

Breed specific legislation can be found within Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act which was first introduced in the UK back in 1991 and has been widely criticised as a complete failure. 

Currently four 'types' of dog are prohibited, with 'type' having a broader definition in law than 'breed'. Dogs are presently identified based mainly on their appearance (physical measurements and proportions) not on DNA, parentage on pedigree papers.

DEFRA have also said that there will be a transition period - Chief Veterinary Officer Christine Middlemiss stated on the 16th Sept that the transition period, referred to as an 'amnesty' will require owners to register their dogs and take action including neutering and insurance, muzzle and leash in all public places. 

These are some of the requirements currently needed for dog registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs

Currently the law has NOT changed, it is planned to change and the Government is taking advice.

The details including how the American Bully XL will be defined - has not yet been made public.

It is recommended that owners take steps now to get ahead of what will be required:

Neuter your dog (record your dog's microchip details at the vets on your dogs record for proof of neutering at a later date if needed).

Obtain the 3rd party liability insurance cover now, by joining the Dogs Trust membership scheme, you will be covered as a benefit to membership - £25 per year per person (£12.50 if over 60yrs) covering up to 10 dogs. Details on their website here.

Buy a decent muzzle which allows your dog to pant and breath, begin muzzle training now, so that you have time for your dog to adjust to wearing a muzzle.

Make sure your dog is microchipped and the dog's microchip information is up to date on the database.




Thursday 31 August 2023

Make pet abduction a specific criminal offence:

Please sign and share this important UK Government Petition which is open until 28th December 2023.

The Government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures and a response is currently awaited as this has been reached, at 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Sign Here - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/640101

Petition Text:

Pets are family. Their abduction a traumatic experience. Despite this, stolen pets are regarded as personal property, with sentences dependent on monetary value. The Government should recognise the emotional & welfare impacts this crime has on people & pets by introducing a 'pet abduction' offence.

Pet Theft Reform has been campaigning to make pet theft a specific offence with access to appropriate custodial sentences since 2018. Four petitions in four years - each triggered parliamentary debates, with a total of 684,970 signatures.

Following a recommendation from the Pet Theft Taskforce, the Government added pet abduction ("taking of pets") to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in November 2021.

The Government dropped the Kept Animals Bill in May 2023.

Wednesday 30 August 2023

Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill presented:

 This is a Private Members' Bill (under the Ten Minute Rule) which is sponsored by Anna Firth Conversative MP.

A Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog; and for connected purposes.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3466 To Be Printed-Bill 132.

This Bill had its 1sr reading in the Commons in May 2023 and the 2nd reading is currently scheduled to take place on 24th November 2023.



Further details from the 1st reading:

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog; and for connected purposes.

Britain is undoubtedly a nation of dog lovers, with recent estimates suggesting that there are 13 million dogs in the UK. In other words, almost half of all households probably have a dog. For many, a dog is not just a pet but a much-loved member of the family. Certainly, my predecessor, Sir David, loved his two pugs, Lily and Bo. My own cavapoochon, Lottie, is a much-loved member of our family.

Research shows that companionship is the most common reason for having a dog. That was absolutely the case for my constituent Michael, who is with us in the Public Gallery. Michael lost his long-standing girlfriend unexpectedly and suddenly to epilepsy, so, after her death, he adopted her beautiful, white, fluffy, bichon frisé bitch Emilie—known affectionately as Millie—both to keep him company and to help him grieve.

Emilie was a wonderful dog. She was gentle, sweet and obedient, and she totally captured Michael’s heart. However, 18 months ago, Emilie was savagely attacked by an off-lead, out-of-control dog while on a walk through the rose garden in Chalkwell Park, Leigh-on-Sea. Michael described the attack as like watching a horror movie. The dog came at Emilie like a missile and, although she was on her lead, “shook her like a rag-doll”.

Michael found himself helpless to stop Emilie being torn apart in front of his eyes. After the attack, he had no option but to carry Emilie, bleeding and with serious open wounds to her abdomen, to the nearest vet, where sadly she was put down. Outrageously, the owner of the dog that attacked Emilie refused to take any responsibility —not even paying the vet’s bill for euthanasia.

No dog owner or dog should have to go through what Michael and Emilie experienced. I believe that we would all be devastated if that happened to our own pet dog, but we would be doubly devastated if, on reporting the matter to the police, we were told that there is nothing they could do as it was simply dog on dog. Yet that is exactly what happened to Michael. That is why I am introducing the Bill.

Sadly, Michael’s experience is far from unique. Since launching the Bill, I have been inundated with heartbreaking tales from dog owners all around the country. Blue the collie, Beau the Yorkshire terrier, Luath the dachshund and Ozzy the cocker spaniel are just some of the names of beautiful dogs that have been viciously killed by other dogs through no fault of their own or their owners.

The statistics back up the anecdotal evidence. After the incident, I submitted freedom of information requests to all 43 police forces in the UK asking if they record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate offence and, if so, how many they had recorded over the last 5 years. Shockingly, only 14 police forces currently record a dog-on-dog attack as a separate incident. However, in 2016 those 14 reported and recorded 1,700 dog-on-dog attacks. Since lockdown, with everyone buying their covid-19 pandemic puppies, the numbers have skyrocketed. In 2021, the same 14 police forces recorded 11,559 dog-on-dog attacks—a 700% increase—with a shocking 2,264 in London alone.

The true incidence of dog-on-dog attacks across the country is likely to be far greater, since it would be ridiculous to assume that those attacks occur only in areas where police forces happen to record them. Scaled up, therefore, there could be as many as 35,000 dog-on-dog attacks each year across the UK—and increasing. Pet insurance companies have also reported dog-on-dog attacks to be rising, resulting in vets bills running to many thousands of pounds for affected households.

Laws, both civil and criminal, have been strengthened in recent years to protect the public where a dog presents as a risk to public safety, whether in public or in private, but it remains the case that a dog owner is not liable to any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally attacks or seriously injures another dog, unless: the other dog is a guide, assistance or service dog; the dog bites a human; or “there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person”.

That is, quite simply, not right. Self-evidently, that is frequently not the case with a dog-on-dog attack, where so often a larger dog is making a bee-line for a smaller dog. In Michael’s case, he did not fear any injury to himself, because it was so clear that the dog was going for Emilie. Ironically, if Emilie had been stolen, not attacked, Michael’s legal remedies would have been far greater. For starters, under the Theft Act 1968, the perpetrator could have received up to seven years imprisonment. But because Emilie was brutally torn apart by someone else’s dog, nothing could be done. Not surprisingly, this leaves pet owners feeling powerless and deeply frustrated. It is also no doubt the reason why police forces do not even record such awful incidents.

Plainly, it is not the dogs that are the problem. Dogs have owners and every dog owner has a responsibility to ensure their dog does not fatally attack another one. In addition, there is a growing cohort of evidence that tackling dog-on-dog aggression and dog attacks in particular may well prevent a dog from going on and attacking other animals, adults or even children. As Benjamin Franklin so famously said:

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”,

The Bill seeks to address all those issues. First, amending the Animal Welfare Act to criminalise fatal dog-on-dog attacks would extend the same protection to pet dogs that already exist for service, guide and assistance dogs. Pet dogs are as important to humans as service dogs. Indeed, when it comes to mental health, all dogs are service dogs.

Secondly, Emilie’s law would empower owners to pursue justice if their beloved pet is brutally attacked, while not demonising any particular breed or creating unhelpful stereotypes around certain breeds of dogs.

Thirdly, the Bill would encourage responsible dog ownership and animal welfare. Placing the responsibility for a fatal dog attack fairly and squarely on the person in charge of the dog, and empowering the police to take action, will have a deterrent effect, thus encouraging more responsible dog ownership.

Finally, the Bill would compel local police forces to record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences, so that, finally, the full scale of these awful offences can be seen and counted. Passing this law would be a significant step in the right direction, but its effectiveness will depend heavily upon enforcement, so we must continue to work closely with the police and law enforcement agencies to ensure offenders are brought to justice.

I am well aware that most private Member’s Bills never make the statute book, but I am hopeful that this one will. It would certainly be extremely popular if it did. Emilie’s law has already garnered a huge amount of public support. However, if the Bill does not make the statute book, I would urge the Government to initiate an immediate review of existing laws regarding dog attacks, with a view to amending the current law to protect pet dogs in a similar way to service, guide and assistance dogs.

The Bill is about protecting the 13 million dogs across the country. Most dog owners are responsible, but there must be consequences for the small minority who are not. This is about dealing with that small minority who irresponsibly allow their dogs to kill other people’s dogs. By passing the Bill, not only will we help to make all dogs more secure, we will also make our parks, our streets, our towns and our cities, especially the new city of Southend, safer places for us all to live, work and visit.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That Anna Firth, Wayne David, Elliot Colburn, Henry Smith, Mr Mark Francois, Sir Oliver Heald, Jane Stevenson, Selaine Saxby, Gareth Johnson, Margaret Ferrier, Damian Green and Peter Gibson present the Bill.

Monday 31 July 2023

Electric Shock Collars Ban - England

Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) England Regulations:

New regulations come into force on the 1st February 2024 and will ban the use of remote-controlled electronic shock collars on dogs an cats in England.


DEFRA Explanatory Notes:

These Regulations make provision for the purpose of preventing the use of electronic collars in England.

Regulation 2(1) makes it an offence for a person who is responsible for a cat or dog to attach an electronic collar, or cause an electronic collar to be attached, to the cat or dog in England.

Regulation 2(2) provides that a person commits an offence if, at any time when the person is responsible for a cat or dog, the cat or dog is wearing an electronic collar and the person is in possession of a remote-control device in England which is designed or adapted for activating and controlling the electronic collar remotely.

Regulation 3 provides that the offences under regulation 2 are summary-only offences and that a person convicted of an offence under regulation 2 is liable to a fine.

Regulation 4 provides that a local authority may prosecute an offence under regulation 2 and regulation 5 provides for various post-conviction powers in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c. 45) to be exercisable in relation to the offences under regulation 2.

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.




Thursday 27 July 2023

Early Day Motion on DDA 1991

EDM 1159 is sponsored by Wayne David MP:

Has your MP viewed the EDM and put their name to it?

EDMs are used to put on record the views of individual MPs or to draw attention to specific events or campaigns. Topics covered by EDMs vary widely.

By attracting the signatures of other MPs, they can be used to demonstrate the level of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view.

EDM 1159:

This House is concerned at the increasing number of dog attacks and is alarmed that 13 people have been killed as a result of a dog attack since the start of 2022 and more have been seriously injured; notes that the cost to the NHS of dog bites has been calculated at £777 million per year; recognises that an approach based on breed specific legislation has failed and that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is woefully ineffective; looks forward to the publication of recommendations by the Government’s Responsible Dog Ownership working group and calls for this to take place before the summer recess; and further calls on the Government to introduce new legislation covering all aspects of the control of dangerous dogs that protects the public, promotes responsible dog ownership and improves animal welfare.






Thursday 29 June 2023

Animal Welfare Bill Officially Withdrawn



The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill has been dropped by the Government - who have given the following statement:

Given the successful progress so far in this Parliament of so much single-issue legislation and the pressures that the original Bill faced from broader interests beyond the original manifesto commitments, we will be taking forward measures in the Kept Animals Bill individually during the remainder of the Parliament - the most effective route possible.

We are committed to cracking down on puppy smuggling. We will ban the imports of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs. Applying strengthened penalties will help send a clear message that animal cruelty will not be tolerated and will enable our courts to take a firmer approach to cases where pets are illegally imported.

We’ve also taken action to tackle the practice of puppy farming. Following the introduction of Lucy’s Law in 2020, everyone must now buy directly from breeders or consider adopting from rescue centres – a major step in stopping the illegal pet trade. If an individual sells puppies or kittens without a licence they could receive an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months.

We also have one of the most rigorous pet travel border checking regimes in the world. Every dog travelling into Great Britain on approved routes has its microchip and paperwork checked to make sure they are all properly vaccinated and old enough to travel.

Farming Minister Mark Spencer said:

In this country, we pride ourselves on our high standards of animal welfare, and we have introduced powerful laws to maintain them.

We are delivering on our manifesto promises and continue to explore ways to enhance our position as a global leader on animal welfare.

We are also supporting Private Members’ Bills currently before Parliament banning the import of detached shark fins, banning the import of hunting trophies and banning the advertising and offering for sale here of unacceptably low animal welfare activities abroad.

Action we’ve already delivered on animal welfare since 2010 includes:

  • Recognised animal sentience in law and introduced accountability to Parliament for how well all government policy decisions pay due regard to the welfare needs of animals.
  • Ramped up enforcement with:
      • Increased maximum sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years’ imprisonment.
      • New financial penalty notice powers in addition to other existing penalties under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
      • New protections for service animals with ‘Finn’s Law’.
  • Raised farm animal welfare:
      • Launched the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway with new annual vet visits and grants.
      • Implemented a revised welfare at slaughter regime and introduced CCTV in all slaughterhouses.
      • Banned traditional battery cages for laying hens, permitted beak trimming via only infra-red technology.
      • Raised standards for meat chickens.
  • Significantly enhanced companion animal welfare:
      • Revamped the local authority licensing regime for commercial pet services including selling, dog breeding, boarding, animal displays.
      • Banned the third party puppy and kitten sales with Lucy’s Law.
      • Made microchipping compulsory for cats and dogs.
      • Introduced offences for horse fly-grazing and abandonment.
      • Introduced new community order powers to address dog issues.
  • Provided valuable new protections for wild animals:
      • Banned wild animals in travelling circuses.
      • Passed the Ivory Act which came into force last year, including one of the toughest bans on elephant ivory sales in the world, and extended it to five further species.
      • Gave the police additional powers to tackle hare coursing.
      • Banned glue traps.
      • Supported the Private Member’s Bill currently before Parliament banning the import of hunting trophies.
      • Supported the Private Member’s Bill currently before Parliament banning trade in detached shark fins.
      • Supported the Private Member’s Bill currently before Parliament banning the advertising and offering for sale here of unacceptably low animal welfare activities abroad


New Microchipping Regulations come in:

 

THE MICROCHIPPING OF CATS AND DOGS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2023

The 2015 Regulations came into force on 24 February 2015 and introduced the compulsory microchipping of dogs. 

Since 6th April 2016, in England, all keepers of dogs that are older than eight weeks have been required to have their dog implanted with a microchip. 

The details of the dog and the keeper’s contact details are to be recorded on a database that complies with specified legislative requirements. 

Breaches of the requirements in respect of microchipping are enforced in accordance with the regulatory regime set out in the 2015 Regulations.

 This instrument revokes the 2015 Regulations. 


It replicates its provisions and extends the obligation in respect of microchipping to cats over 20 weeks of age, resulting in equivalent provisions in respect of the microchipping of cats and dogs. 

The obligation to microchip a cat comes into force on 10th June 2024. 

The instrument also makes minor and technical drafting changes where provisions replicated in it did not adequately set out the policy intent.

The new legislation can be viewed here.




Tuesday 30 May 2023

New Public Consultation Launched:

Introducing penalty notices for animal health and welfare offences in England:

DEFRA are seeking your views on the government’s proposed implementation of penalty notices for animal health and welfare offences in England.

This Consultation is open until 20th July 2023

Online Survey Here



DEFRA want to know your views on the scope of animal health and welfare offences that could be covered by penalty notices and elements on how the penalty regime might work in practice to ensure the guidance is clear and transparent to enforcers and the general public and write:

In April 2022, the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act “the Act” was passed in Parliament. The Act provides the powers to introduce penalty notices in England for relevant animal health and welfare offences (and in Wales for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). 

The Act states that the Secretary of State may through regulations, prescribe offences as relevant offences for the purposes of this Act. 

The Act requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to ‘switch on’ the penalty notices option for relevant offences under the primary legislation listed in the Act itself and all secondary legislation made under those primary legislation. 

We are consulting on two elements:

 1. Which range of offences could be “switched on” and be under the scope of the penalty notices regime 

2. How penalty notices will work in practice. 

We believe that these new and proportionate financial penalties for animal health and welfare offences could add to, and complement, the current enforcement regime to support early behaviour change to promote compliance and better protect the nation’s animals.