Bill to ban young kittens and puppies being imported into UK passed by MPs
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.
'Crucially, the Bill places a duty on the Government to use these regulation-making powers to first deliver three key measures – a ban on the import of puppies and kittens under six months old, a ban on the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant, and a ban on the import of dogs and cats who've been mutilated.'
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.'
Labour MP Peter Lamb (Crawley) directly named Meta, which owns Facebook, as a company that publishes content featuring animal abuse.
He said: 'There are far too many groups online which are dedicated to animal abuse. Constituents of mine have been involved in attempts to try and shut these groups down over the years.
'They'll also often find that instead of finding support on the part of social media companies, to try and address these problems, instead it is they who are reported and face their own accounts being shut down by those perpetrators.'
He added: 'We cannot rest on our laurels and Meta must be made to answer for the fact that they are not acting to bring an end to animal abuse on their networks, and that they are profiting actively from the advertising which appears on that network, and advertisers must be aware that part of what they are paying for, when they pay to advertise on Facebook, is maintenance of animal abuse networks.'
Environment minister Emma Hardy said: 'These measures represent a crucial step forward in our collective efforts to tackle the pet smuggling trade.'
Ms Hardy added: 'We want to see fewer low-welfare operations supply pets to the GB market and fundamentally less animals to suffer because of this.'
She continued: 'As set out in the Government's manifesto, we are committed to ending puppy smuggling and delivering a better future for our animals and I am pleased to say that this Bill does just that.
'It's key measures deliver crucial recommendations put forward by the Efra (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) select committee and tackle multiple concerns that have been raised by stakeholders regarding loopholes in our current pet travel rules.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
How many asylum seekers are in UK hotels and why are they being housed there?
The subject of asylum seekers being housed in hotels has come into sharp focus after a High Court ruling. On Tuesday, Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary injunction blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town. Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the latest overall data. – How many asylum seekers are in hotels across the UK? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. – How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210. – Why are asylum seekers being housed in hotels? Asylum seekers and their families can be housed in temporary accommodation, known as contingency accommodation, if they are awaiting assessment of their claim or have had a claim approved and there is not enough longer-term accommodation available. The Home Office provides accommodation to asylum seekers who have no other way of supporting themselves on a 'no choice' basis, so they cannot choose where they live. When there is not enough housing, the Home Office can move people to accommodation such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases. In May, the National Audit Office said those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation. – Is this likely to be a permanent arrangement? Labour has pledged to end the 'costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament' – which would be 2029, if not earlier. Campaigners and charities have long argued that hotels are not suitable environments to house asylum seekers. The Refugee Council said they 'cost the taxpayer billions, trap people in limbo and are flashpoints in communities' and urged the Government to 'partner with local councils to provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities'. – What is the Government saying since the legal ruling? Ministers are 'looking at a range of different contingency options' following Tuesday's ruling, according to security minister Dan Jarvis In the immediate aftermath of the judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle repeated criticism of the previous Conservative government, saying Labour had 'inherited a broken asylum system'. She said the Government would 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns' around asylum hotels. – What options does the Home Office have now? Last month, amid protests outside the Bell Hotel and more migrants crossing the Channel, an extra 400 spaces were being prepared to house male asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield in Essex. The former military site, which has a usual capacity of 800 beds, is expected to house more adult men on a short-term basis. The Labour Government scrapped the large site of the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset, earlier this year, while Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent, is also due to end housing asylum seekers and be returned to the Ministry of Defence in September. – Why were there protests outside the Bell Hotel? The hotel in Epping has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl – something he has denied and he is due to stand trial later in August. After the High Court's ruling, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrote in the Telegraph calling for Epping protests to inspire further action wherever there are concerns about the 'threat posed by young undocumented males' living in hotels. But on Tuesday more than 100 women's organisations wrote to ministers warning that vital conversations about violence against women and girls are being 'hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda' that fuels divisions and harms survivors. The joint statement, including from Rape Crisis England & Wales and Refuge, said: 'We have been alarmed in recent weeks by an increase in unfounded claims made by people in power, and repeated in the media, that hold particular groups as primarily responsible for sexual violence. 'This not only undermines genuine concerns about women's safety, but also reinforces the damaging myth that the greatest risk of gender-based violence comes from strangers.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
This tidal wave of illegal migration can only be stopped by deterrence
What is the Government proposing to do about housing asylum seekers, in view of this week's court ruling that a migrant hotel in Epping, Essex, should be closed? It is possible that the interim judgment will be overturned, but that should not be taken by the Home Office as a signal to carry on as before. Indeed, ministers have said they will stop using hotels, but only by 2029, which is of no use to local people concerned about the sudden incursion of mostly young men into their neighbourhoods. With the number of migrants crossing the Channel at record levels and seemingly little prospect of removing those already here, this is a problem that can only get worse. If the High Court ruling is upheld, other councils will doubtless use the planning laws to close down hotels to avoid protests by local people. The case in Epping revolved around the failure to apply for a change of use from a hotel to a semi-permanent hostel. This alleged unlawful use had affected what is known as 'amenity' – that is, the generally-understood quality of an area or community. This set of circumstances must have been replicated across the country and is now a green light for others to stage protests in a bid to get a similar result. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, writing in The Telegraph, said the 12 councils controlled by his party would mount similar legal challenges, and he urged people to stage protests at asylum hotels to persuade their local authorities to take similar action. There are currently some 30,000 asylum seekers in around 200 hotels. Others are in temporary accommodation and some in disused military barracks. But there are clearly not enough places to cope with the continuing influx. It is not good enough for ministers to claim they are bearing down on the smugglers or seeking return agreements with other countries. The biggest problem remains the pull factor bringing migrants to our shores. If they know they can be picked up a few miles off shore and brought to Britain, where they will be put up in a hotel, that is an incentive to find the money to pay the gangs. If, as an alternative to hotels, the Home Office allows asylum seekers to jump the queue for social housing that will be an additional magnet and will further antagonise local people. The key policy ambition must be deterrence, yet Labour has done nothing since taking office to put migrants off coming. Until it does, this crisis can only deepen.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
If Reeves isn't stopped, every inch of Britain will be the property of the state
The pitch rolling has started. The propagandists have been unleashed. We are being softened-up for the ultimate betrayal, the most obscene of broken promises, the grossest attack on private wealth in living memory. If you are a homeowner, I have grim news: Rachel Reeves has just declared war on you. You could pay even more tax, so much so that in some cases you may be forced to sell your house to pay the bill – and then to hand over yet more cash just to be allowed to say goodbye to your beloved family home. Reeves is considering several options, all abhorrent: an annual proportional wealth tax on the value of homes, large enough to replace stamp duty, council tax and more; the imposition of capital gains tax (CGT) on primary residences for the first time ever, albeit just on more expensive ones at first; an 'exit tax' as an alternative to CGT, payable on sale; and a revaluation of council tax, with even higher bands, including a mansion tax. Britain is in the midst of an epic struggle between tax-eaters and net taxpayers, between those seeking to squeeze ever more out of the private sector to keep our bankrupt welfare state going a little longer, and those desperately seeking to preserve their wealth at a time of weak GDP, stagnant real wages and rocketing costs. We have almost reached the economy's maximal taxable capacity, at least with the tools at HMRC's disposal. The bond vigilantes are circling, and Reeves has taken the UK to the brink of fiscal meltdown. Her party won't allow her to cut spending, so she is turning to the last untapped El Dorado, the final pot of cash ripe for raiding: our homes, worth trillions of pounds in total. If she goes down, she wants it to be in a blaze of Left-wing glory, taking out the forces of conservatism's last bastion and scoring the greatest victory for socialism since the glory days of Hugh Dalton and Sir Stafford Cripps. Primary residences have long been the great tax taboo, the last line of defence against predatory politicians: no government has been able to directly tax their gains in value or to impose an annual levy (a property wealth tax) over and above council tax. Slapping CGT on primary residences or an annual property wealth tax based on the value of one's home isn't some minor technocratic tweak to the tax system to make it slightly more 'efficient' or 'fair': it's an attempt at dynamiting the foundations of our society, to drastically curtail the power of the petite bourgeoisie, and to enshrine the political class's supremacy. Unlike with ISAs or pensions, whose tax-beneficial status are understood to survive at the Chancellor's discretion, primary residences are an Englishman's tax-free castles, for which we assume we have a natural right not to be taxed. This is one of the last in-built libertarian assumptions in British society, and the reason why Reeves's proposed tax 'reforms' are so pernicious. Tim Leunig, who advised Rishi Sunak and whose Left-wing ideas are also proving attractive to Reeves, is advocating for a 0.44 per cent levy on homes worth up to £500,000 to replace council tax. He simultaneously wants stamp duty to be replaced by a 0.54 per cent annual tax on homes above £500,000, with an extra 0.28 per cent supplement on values over £1m. These would be revenue-neutral, which wouldn't be good enough for Reeves: she wants to raise billions more. The rates would need to be even higher. I loathe council tax and stamp duty, but this idiot savant scheme would create Britain's first annual wealth tax, levied on a stock of illiquid assets, and would prove even worse. Property rights would be abrogated, and homeowners downgraded into leaseholders, paying the state-cum-landlord a fee for the right to keep living in our homes. The ancient tradition of the yeoman freeholder would be extinguished. Many homeowners would end up paying £7,000, £15,000 or more a year. At best, there would be no money left for holidays or school fees; at worst, total tax bills would exceed 100 per cent of annual incomes. Pensioners and the cash-poor would be forced to sell. Many would pray their house didn't increase in value, and halt repairs and enhancements. Some would tear down garages or annexes to reduce their annual tax, or allow homes and gardens to fall into disrepair to influence assessors. Entrepreneurs, rich investors and the last non-doms would flee the UK. We should scrap stamp duty, but by cutting spending, not by introducing this repulsive new form of larceny. Imposing CGT on primary residences would be almost as toxic. Like every new tax, invariably pitched to us as limited in scale and scope, it would soon be extended, in this case to ever more homes. The rates would soon be equalised to that on income. Eventually, it would become impossible to make any gains from property at all. Tax used to be only payable on real capital gains, not on inflationary increases. Labour largely ended that key protection; the Tories scrapped the last safeguards. Inflation, now at 3.8 per cent, is once again a silent thief, delivering what Milton Friedman described as 'taxation without legislation' on a grand scale. Under Reeves's plans, homeowners would pay tax on phantom inflationary gains and in many cases lose money in real terms. This would be especially true in London, where real, as opposed to nominal, property prices are often lower than they were a few years ago. It would be barely concealed theft. Buying a house would become a high-risk gamble. Homeowners who haven't kept every receipt would face tax bills for their recently completed new kitchens. More generally, there would be far fewer future home improvements and extensions as the post-tax payback would be lower. Nobody who didn't have to sell their home would do so, especially with the prospect of a Reform government reversing the raid. The housing market would implode. This war on homeowners is a bridge too far, a leap into proto-Marxist hell. Reeves is seeking to pauperise the middle classes. Taxpayers must make their fury known, write to their MPs and take to social media. This is the final battle, the fight to end all political fights: the Chancellor must be persuaded to change her mind, or else there will be no hope left for this country.
