RSPCA issues disease warning over imported dogs
This call follows 2023 government statistics revealing 320,000 pets entered the UK via travel schemes, with 44,000 as commercial imports.
RSPCA spokesman David Bowles likened the process to ' Deliveroo for dogs' and called on the Government to tighten regulations on animal rescues.
He told the BBC: 'The RSPCA's major concern is these dogs are essentially ticking time bombs – coming over, not being health tested.
'Diseases are now coming in through these dogs. They're affecting not just the dogs that are being imported, they could also affect the dogs already in this country and their owners.
'They've almost set up a Deliveroo for dogs and that is a real problem.'
There is no requirement for rescue organisations to be licensed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
It comes weeks after a bill that aims to stop animal smuggling and cruelty cleared the Commons with cross-party support.
Legislation put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Danny Chambers will reduce the number of animals for non-commercial entry into the UK, ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months old or heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and introduce a halt on the import of dogs and cats who have been 'mutilated', including having their ears docked.
The MP for Winchester's Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill was supported by the Government, and will now proceed to the House of Lords on its passage to becoming law.
Dr Chambers said: 'As a vet, I've seen the devastating consequences of puppy smuggling. It's unimaginably cruel to separate puppies and kittens from their mothers at a very young age, and then bring them across borders in substandard conditions where they're then sold for maximum profit by unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare.'
He added: 'Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign and declare that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial.
He criticised the influence of social media on the increased demand for dogs with docked ears, and a party colleague hit out at the platforms' role in publishing animal abuse.
He said: 'One reason that there is such an interest in dogs with cropped ears is that a lot of influencers on Instagram and other social media platforms pose with these dogs or show they have these new dogs with cropped ears. Many people aren't aware that this is a mutilation.
'They think it's how the dogs' ears normally look, and it drives a demand for dogs that look like this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Veterans face eviction from council housing
A dozen veterans fear they will be made homeless after they were threatened with eviction from their homes. The former military and Navy personnel, who have conditions including PTSD, have been told they will have to leave their one-bedroom flats in Bolton after the council decided to stop paying the landlord. The veterans living in Constellation House said they felt they would be treated better if they were asylum seekers, after they were issued with eviction notices from the supported accommodation earlier this month. The proposed evictions were triggered after Bolton council decided to stop paying housing benefit to Qualitas Housing because it concluded the supported accommodation did not meet requirements. The eviction of the veterans, including former members of the Royal Signals, the tank regiment and the Navy, prompted speculation locally that the accommodation was being cleared to house asylum seekers. While the housing association denied it was moving in migrants, saying it was effectively forced to make evictions because of the council, veterans claimed asylum seekers were prioritised over them. The row comes amid concerns from veterans that Afghans given asylum as a result of the worst data leak in British history could be prioritised for housing at the expense of former soldiers. Scott Berry, 55, who served for six years in the Royal Signals, said: 'You have migrants who we don't have a clue about being given everything they need. We are veterans and they don't give a damn. We could be made homeless, we still don't know.' 'You never know what they plan to do, and the council and Qualitas are passing the buck,' he added. 'Have a bit of grace.' The tenants have now said they fear being made homeless and are not getting answers from either the council or the landlord, which they said previously received up to £350 a week per person. Mr Berry said that the housing provider must be serious about evictions to send out notices. 'They said the reason was because the council have held back the housing benefits payments,' he said. 'But you don't issue letters if you don't mean anything. 'They could have just rang the council and discussed it. It doesn't make sense.' 'Sorry state of affairs' Mr Berry said that although the owner was different, nothing had changed with the accommodation and it was putting unnecessary stress on veterans with PTSD. 'We've got PTSD, we do have problems. We don't need things like this happening. It's a sorry state of affairs when you are giving people letters. It's not very nice.' While claims that the building was going to be used to house asylum seekers are false, he said many people believed asylum seekers being housed in hotels were treated better than veterans. The housing system was already at breaking point, with local authority waiting lists at record levels across the country, before it was revealed that Britain was secretly relocating nearly 24,000 Afghan soldiers and their families to the UK after their identities were published online. Local authority tenants include the disabled, victims of domestic violence, people leaving care and benefits claimants, as well as veterans. Under the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government and local authorities are committed to helping military families, including former personnel, to access housing, healthcare and education. But veterans have voiced fears that an influx of Afghans is making it more difficult for them to secure accommodation. The Government will spend £7bn bringing Afghans affected by the leak to Britain over five years, with 18,500 already flown in. According to court documents, Afghans have been sent to Bracknell in Berkshire, Preston in Lancashire, Aberdeen in Scotland, and Cardiff in Wales. Others were sent to West Sussex and Yorkshire, while plans were afoot for hotels to be opened up to them in the North East, East Anglia and the East Midlands. Some of the Afghans sent to Bracknell under the scheme were housed in a four-star hotel, given free English lessons and received medical treatment from the NHS. The block in Bolton was previously managed by another provider and was taken over by Qualitas in February, triggering new applications for the enhanced support rate of housing benefit. After what it described as 'a lengthy period of due diligence and evidence gathering', the council said it did not meet the required standards. Veterans were then issued with eviction notices by Qualitas earlier this month and have been told they have until mid-September to leave their one-bedroom flats. The housing association and the council have now blamed each other for the row, with Qualitas arguing it had to issue the notices because of the withdrawal of housing benefits, while the local authority insisted the accommodation was not suitable. The veterans are being supported by Trevor Jones, the local Reform Party chairman, who has questioned why the housing association would 'throw them out'. He said: 'They wanted to throw 12 servicemen on the street. I have told them not to go anywhere, they are staying put. 'If we can't protect them, then who can we? That doesn't add up. It looks like a plan to get it empty.' Most of those staying in the property were first referred to Constellation House by charities or other local authorities. Exempt accommodation providers receive housing benefits payments directly in exchange for providing support services to vulnerable tenants. Housing benefits paid to exempt accommodation providers are not subject to the same caps as regular housing benefits and the council decided it did not qualify. It is understood the council has to decide eligibility to pay the enhanced support rate of housing benefits based on national legislation that is audited each year to ensure compliance. Ignoring any evidence that accommodation is not fit for purpose could leave the council liable for paying thousands of pounds a month for substandard accommodation and could leave holes in the housing support budget. Bolton council said the decision to issue eviction notices was taken entirely by Qualitas Housing as an independent housing provider and it became aware of the situation only after notices were issued. A spokesman said: 'We share the concerns that have been raised after Qualitas Housing issued section 21 notices to Armed Forces veterans living at Constellation House in Farnworth. 'We are in discussions with the housing provider to resolve this matter. 'The council is also in the process of contacting the tenants to offer the full support of our housing options and advice team. 'Qualitas Housing have confirmed they have not spoken to Serco and do not have any plans to house asylum seekers in the property.' He added: 'Exempt accommodation providers receive uncapped housing benefits directly, in exchange for providing support services to vulnerable tenants. 'In order to qualify, providers must meet specific criteria to ensure appropriate services and facilities are in place. 'While the council previously concluded that Constellation House did not meet the required standards, this decision has now been appealed and we are reviewing the case in line with the legislation.' A spokesman for Qualitas Housing said: 'Qualitas Housing is aware of recent claims suggesting that Armed Forces veterans are being evicted from Constellation House to accommodate asylum seekers. These claims are entirely false. 'The difficult decision to issue section 21 notices followed the local authority's refusal to reinstate housing benefit for the tenants. We are actively supporting the tenants in appealing this decision and are working closely with both them and the council to ensure that no individual is left without suitable accommodation.'
Times
17 minutes ago
- Times
Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer
Some of Britain's most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law. Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. The letter, seen by The Times, was sent to Lord Hermer, the attorney-general and the government's top legal adviser. The signatories point out that Starmer's pledge risked undermining the government's commitment that international law goes 'absolutely to the heart' of its foreign policy. Among those who signed the letter were seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, one of the UK's most respected lawyers. Pannick represented the government in its Supreme Court battle over the Rwanda relocation scheme. The peers, including some of parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, wrote to Hermer: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. 'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy. 'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.' The 1933 treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital, laid out the four key criteria for statehood in international law. The treaty says a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The letter added that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state, while the government would face difficulty continuing to recognise millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'refugees', given recognition of statehood would mean they were in their own territory. They also argued that there is no functioning single government, and it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. Hamas is a proscribed terror group in the UK. Among the 40 peers to sign the letter were prominent legal figures including Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, Lord Verdirame KC, a leading barrister and professor in international law, Lord Faulks KC, a leading human rights lawyer, and Lord Banner KC, whose report on radical planning reforms are being accepted by Starmer to speed up major infrastructure projects. Labour signatories include Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Turnberg, Lord Shamash and Lord Winston, while Lord Harrington of Watford, the former refugee minister, and Lord Walney, the government's former adviser on political violence and disruption, also signed the letter. Former cabinet ministers include Lord Pickles, Lord Lansley, Lord Ellis KC, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Baroness Foster of Oxton. Several former Labour attorney-generals are also said to be supportive of the letter. Starmer insisted on Wednesday that Britain's recognition of Palestinian statehood is 'not a gesture' but will secure a viable two-state solution as he embarked on a diplomatic push to secure support for his Middle East peace plan. In a round of calls with world leaders, Starmer said 'recognition needed to be rooted in a process of change that made a material difference to the situation on the ground'. He told his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, that 'recognition was not a gesture, but a driver for real change that ensured a viable two-state solution', Downing Street said. Starmer also stressed the need for a ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the acceleration of aid and ensuring Hamas played no role in a future state. Starmer's announcement has been widely criticised by both Jewish groups and the families of Britons who were held captive, and who have accused the government of reducing hostages to a 'bargaining chip'. On Wednesday evening, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi, accused Starmer of fundamentally undermining the peace and security of both Israelis and Palestinians and said that the announcement at a time when hostages remain captive can 'only disincentivise Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire'. Writing in The Times, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, warned that Starmer's 'knee-jerk recognition of Palestinian statehood will embolden our enemies at abroad and at home'. The letter was announced after Palestine Action won permission to challenge its ban by the UK government. The High Court ruled that the decision by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation should be reviewed in the courts. Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, lodged a bid to challenge the proscription, which was made under anti-terror legislation. The proscription was announced by Cooper after the group claimed responsibility for breaking into RAF Brize Norton on June 20 and inflicting millions of pounds of damage to two Voyager aircraft. In a major ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'reasonably arguable' that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He concluded that a substantive hearing at the High Court should be held in order to decide the legality of the decision to proscribe the group. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said: 'The court has confirmed the continuation of the proscription order against Palestine Action Group in line with its previous judgement, while allowing permission for a further hearing under the normal judicial review procedures. 'The decision to proscribe was based on strong security advice and the unanimous recommendation by the expert cross-government Proscription Review Group. This followed serious attacks the group has committed, involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.' She added: 'Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation. But people should be under no illusion — this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.'
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
Nottingham maternity families 'cross' after meeting with NHS leaders
Families involved in the biggest independent inquiry into NHS maternity services say they still want answers after meeting with local leaders. On Wednesday, parents of children who were harmed or died following failings in care at two hospitals in Nottingham met with officials from the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) for the first said they were "very surprised" to have had to request to meet a statement after the meeting, the ICB said it was "humbled and saddened by the experiences shared by the families". Hundreds of babies have died or been injured while under the care of Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) NHS Trust, which runs the departments at City Hospital and Queen's Medical 2,500 cases are currently being examined in a review chaired by senior midwife Donna Ockenden, who also presided over Wednesday's were created in July 2022, taking over the role of managing budgets and local services from clinical commissioning groups, which were established in and Dr Jack Hawkins, whose daughter Harriet was stillborn in 2016 following maternity failings at Nottingham City Hospital, were among those at the meeting."We are very surprised that they have not reached out to us before - in fact we asked for this meeting," said Dr Hawkins added: "This meeting has demonstrated basically how horrific it is, their lack of awareness."Families have left the meeting cross, and questioning their competency."ICB chief executive Amanda Sullivan said the board has "committed to supporting and challenging the trust to drive improvements to maternity care"."We welcome the questions the families raised and commit to answering these at a follow-up meeting soon," she said.
