Written evidence submitted by Naturewatch Foundation (PWA0038)

EFRA Committee Inquiry: Pet Welfare and Abuse consultation response, Naturewatch Foundation, April 2023

Who we are

1. Naturewatch Foundation is a charity registered in England and Wales (1039679) that campaigns to advance animal welfare standards and end animal abuse. Our team has experience and expertise in animal welfare law, its enforcement and the investigation of crimes against animals. Our companion animal specialisms include campaigning against low welfare and exploitative ‘pet’ breeding, the use of companion animals in coercive control, sexual violence against animals, and the use of dogs to commit crimes against wildlife.

2. This submission focuses on the following terms of reference: unscrupulous breeding and importation, including canine fertility clinics; abuse and mutilation; and, current preventative measures.

3. Naturewatch Foundation has coordinated a joint stakeholder response about canine fertility clinics specifically. To avoid repetition, this submission will include additional evidence and commentary only; please refer to the stakeholder response[1] for our substantive evidence and recommendations about this term of reference.

4. We are also signatories to the Legal Advisory Group for Extreme Conformation in Dogs (LAGECD) response[2] and support the Group’s proposals.

Part 1: Unscrupulous breeding and importation

5. Artificial insemination (AI) is becoming a more popular breeding method, as evidenced by the rapid growth in canine fertility clinics.[3] A recent trend we have observed is increasing involvement of breeders and associated businesses in the import, export, storage, collection, preparation and testing (and thereby handling) of canine semen. Our analysis of canine fertility businesses across the UK has found that most clinics provide at least some semen-related services.

6. By way of background, canine semen can change hands for significant sums of money, ranging from several hundred to several thousand pounds per transaction, making this a lucrative trade. At the most extreme end of the market, semen from popular males is being advertised for £10,000, and we have seen examples for as much as £30,000.

7. Shipping and/or preserving semen for AI is seen as an attractive alternative to shipping dogs for mating. Whilst trading semen removes the need for dogs to travel long distances, which is a welfare benefit, it is a practice that is being exploited by criminals and unscrupulous breeders. For example, in the United States, trading semen for AI is popular within dog fighting communities as it removes the need to transport dogs with visible wounds and scarring past airport authorities,[4] while semen preservation with an out-of-state cryobank means that dog fighters can continue breeding their ‘champion bloodlines’ well after a dog dies or is seized by the authorities.[5]

8. Meanwhile, some unscrupulous breeders in the UK have taken to keeping high numbers of male dogs for semen production for the purposes of ‘designer’ dog breeding via AI. Our analysis of ten randomly selected fertility clinics in England found that all were involved in advertising stud dog services.[6] Between six and 46 males were available to book through each clinic (182 across all ten clinics). Keeping males for semen production is seen as appealing due to potential for significant rewards coupled with the lower cost of care compared with keeping females and rearing puppies. Breeders who keep only male dogs for breeding also fall outside the scope of current dog breeding regulations,[7] the threshold for which focuses on puppy production/selling rather than the full spectrum of dog breeding activity.

9. To prevent the continuation of criminal dog breeding activity, investigating authorities should be issued with guidance to seize canine semen from premises searched under warrant for suspected animal welfare offending where relevant.

10. The scope of dog breeding regulations should be expanded to ensure the welfare of all dogs kept and used for breeding purposes. In particular, stud dog-only businesses should be brought within regulatory scope to safeguard the welfare of male dogs used for breeding, including semen production.

11. Brucella canis (B. canis) can be shed in high quantities in infected dogs’ semen. This poses risks to humans who are coming into contact with infected semen that has not been appropriately screened, particularly that which is imported or is collected from imported dogs originating from countries where B. canis is endemic.

12. Exposure to infected animal by-products can cause Brucellosis, which is a zoonotic and notifiable bacterial disease. B. canis is rare in the UK, but there has been a notable increase in cases in recent years[8] and the first dog-human transmission was reported in August 2022.[9] In 2021, Public Health England concluded that, “individuals at greatest risk of exposure to B. canis are those with potential contact with B. canis contaminated materials, especially fluids and tissues associated with breeding and parturition, either in an occupational or domestic setting.”[10]

13. Businesses and individuals that handle canine semen and that do not take adequate precautions (such as appropriate screening and practising high standards of biosecurity) could pose risks to public and animal health. Under current legislation,[11] premises that handle animal by-products are generally required to register with the Animal & Plant Health Agency (APHA). Animal semen is classed as category two material,[12] which means it should be kept, used and disposed of in accordance with certain rules.[13] There is an exemption for semen that is intended to be used for breeding purposes.[14] “Breeding purposes” is not defined, which raises the prospect that businesses, such as canine fertility clinics, that provide pre-breeding semen analysis or evaluation tests should be registered with APHA.

14. The Government should provide clarification on the application of the above registration requirements and remind businesses and individuals involved in the handling of canine semen of their responsibilities under animal health law. Businesses that fail to comply should be subject to enforcement action.

15. Canine semen can be imported to Great Britain under a general licence subject to compliance with conditions within that licence.[15] It is an offence to import semen without the authority of a licence or in contravention of a licence.[16] Under the general licence, canine semen must be accompanied by a veterinary certificate that has been authorised by a government vet within the exporting country.[17] The donor dog must be compliant with the general health and identification conditions that would apply to pet dogs imported non-commercially,[18] namely they should be identifiable by a transponder, have an ID document and have received a rabies vaccination (plus titre test if the import originates from a third country).[19]

16. A veterinary surgeon must certify that a donor dog is free of clinical signs of infectious or contagious disease,[20] but there is no general requirement to screen the dog for B. canis prior to importation of canine semen. This is at odds with a number of other countries. Our analysis of published Export Health Certificates shows that a number of countries[21] around the world require veterinary certification that donor dogs have had a negative brucellosis blood test before their semen can be imported to that country and/or that there have been no reported B. canis cases in the country of origin for at least the last six months.

17. Great Britain should consider introducing a similar requirement given the recent increase in B. canis cases. The handling of canine semen by unregistered premises should also be risk assessed from a public and animal health perspective.

18. There are now at least 404 canine fertility clinics in the UK, with the majority in England (331).[22] Unscrupulous clinics that do not promote responsible and ethical breeding have benefitted from regulatory uncertainty[23] about whether certain assisted breeding procedures, such as intravaginal artificial insemination, constitute acts of veterinary surgery[24] or not. This uncertainty must be resolved as a matter of urgency. Our view is that canine fertility clinics are providing veterinary services and that it would be in the best interests of animal welfare for the performance of assisted breeding techniques in companion animals to be restricted to registered veterinary professionals.

19. Unscrupulous canine fertility clinics have also benefited from diffuse enforcement arrangements,[25] which has led to confusion about where concerns about suspected illegal activity, particularly illegal veterinary surgery by people who are not registered veterinary professionals,[26] should be reported. This must be resolved to ensure that 1. the public and members of the veterinary profession can report concerns in confidence and, 2. appropriate enforcement action can be taken.

20. The Government should issue guidance to 1. resolve any outstanding regulatory uncertainty about the application of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to canine assisted breeding procedures and tests, and 2. provide clarity about which enforcement body members of the public and veterinary profession should report concerns about suspected illegal veterinary surgery to.

21. To prevent demand for assisted breeding services to overcome dogs’ physical inabilities to mate due to inherited health issues, dog breeding regulations[27] should also be strengthened to prevent irresponsible use of reproductive biotechnology by licensed dog breeders.

22. In keeping with responsible and ethical dog breeding advice,[28] 1. the use of artificial insemination to breed from dogs who cannot mate due to inherited health issues should be prohibited, and 2. breeding from female dogs who can reasonably be expected to experience birthing difficulties due to inherited health issues should be prohibited.

Part 2: Abuse and mutilation

23. Mutilating a protected animal (other than where an exemption exists[29]) is an offence under s5 Animal Welfare Act 2006 (“AWA”). The current offence is clear but the fact that there is no prohibition on importing and selling dogs with cropped ears and animals with other cosmetic mutilations that would be otherwise illegal in England and Wales is a significant loophole that is being exploited.[30]

24. The Kept Animals Bill creates powers for restricting the importation of mutilated dogs and cats and should complete its passage through Parliament as a matter of urgency.

Part 3: Current preventative measures

25. Companion animal abuse is currently prevented and welfare is currently safeguarded in law by the AWA and various statutory instruments made using that Act, such as the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (“LAIAR”). Veterinary and animal health law also has a significant role to play in ensuring companion animal health, and thereby welfare.

26. According to Ministry of Justice data,[31] between 2016 - 2021, 5,475 people were proceeded against for alleged animal cruelty offending and 4,242 were convicted. The most common sentencing outcomes were 1. a community sentence (given in 1,459 cases), 2. a fine (1,069 cases), and 3. a suspended sentence (963 cases). An immediate custodial sentence was given in 393 cases. Other sentencing outcomes include conditional discharge and compensation. The average fine amount given during that time for offending under sections 4 - 8 of the AWA was £301 and the average custodial sentence was 3.7 months. Average fines given for other animal cruelty offending was £309 with the average custodial sentence being 3.4 months.

27. The available data is not broken down by species/type and so it is not possible to say how many convictions involved offending against companion animals. However, it does show that sentencing outcomes for more serious animal welfare offending[32] is on par with less serious offending, which is of concern. The modest financial penalties are of particular concern given the high financial rewards that low-welfare commercial operators, such as illegal puppy farmers, can enjoy as a result of their criminality.

28. The Sentencing Council is due to publish revised sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty imminently following the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum available custodial sentence for the most serious animal welfare offences to five years (on indictment). It remains to be seen what difference this will make, but our expectation is that the courts should make full use of new sentencing powers for serious animal welfare offences.

29. Whilst the current framework in England and Wales is generally good relative to other countries there are ample opportunities for improvement that would help to better protect companion animals and promote their welfare.

30. Illicit companion animal breeding can be a significant cause of poor welfare throughout an animal’s life, but the welfare of offspring is not adequately promoted in the existing regime, which means there are limited opportunities to tackle extreme breeding decisions that lead to inherently poor welfare. The AWA does not currently apply to animals in their foetal or embryonic form,[33] but does enable the Secretary of State to expand its scope to animals in an earlier stage of their development[34] or pass regulations to promote the welfare of progeny.[35] Some protection is currently afforded to the future offspring of dogs used for breeding in England in LAIAR as it is a standard condition of a dog breeding licence that:

No dog may be kept for breeding if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, phenotype or state of health that breeding from it could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare or the health or welfare of its offspring.[36]

This is a welcome addition but only applies to breeders of dogs who meet the current licensing threshold in England, which - as discussed at para 8 - is relatively narrow and does not encompass all dog breeding activity. This provision could also go further by prohibiting breeding from dogs with established behaviour problems, like in Scotland.[37]

31. Regard for the health, welfare and temperament of future offspring should be an expectation of all people who are involved in intentional companion animal breeding in England and Wales. The aforementioned powers available under the AWA should be utilised to achieve this and the LAIAR regime should be expanded to regulate additional companion animal breeding activities, including the breeding of cats and rabbits.

32. Our work to examine the growth in canine fertility clinics has highlighted inadequacies in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (“VSA 1966”). It is an offence to practise veterinary surgery illegally (subject to exemptions) but the available penalty on summary conviction is a £100 fine,[38] which is no disincentive and is well below the cost of many veterinary procedures. The Act is silent about both the maximum fine available on indictment[39] and which authority is responsible for enforcement. This is not satisfactory and hinders the usefulness of the VSA 1966 in tackling illegal veterinary services and people who perform amateur veterinary surgery, such as DIY c-sections.

33. The penalties available under the VSA 1966 should be modernised and the Act should be amended to make it clear which statutory body is responsible for taking enforcement action. As a minimum, available financial penalties should exceed the cost of complex veterinary surgeries to act as a meaningful deterrent.

34. A practical barrier to enforcement action being taken is the cost of caring for animals who have been seized and remain the property of the accused for the duration of criminal proceedings, which can take months or even years. In particular, welfare and abuse cases that involve high numbers of animals (such as commercial breeding and hoarding cases) can cost many thousands of pounds. Leaving animals with compromised welfare in situ is clearly not desirable and can also harm the strength of the prosecution's case. Animals whose value to the accused is commercial should be capable of being rehomed well before the conclusion of legal proceedings.

35. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 should be amended so that where it is in the interests of the welfare of an animal/s taken into possession (and subject to providing the owner with a time-limited right of appeal), they can receive 1. appropriate veterinary treatment, 2. be rehomed and/or 3. be euthanised on welfare grounds before the conclusion of legal proceedings without the consent of the owner and without the need for a court order (there is precedent for this in Scotland[40]).

36. The current animal welfare framework and wider criminal justice framework does not adequately reflect The Link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. Numerous studies[41] and real-life examples have demonstrated The Link and members of the Naturewatch Foundation team have seen it first hand in previous careers. It is well established that animal abuse can be a precursor to violent offending towards humans and can be used as part of coercive control, but animal welfare offending is too often minimised and treated as a minor form of criminality. Furthermore, our research has found a majority of cases of extreme pornography involve possession of images of animal sexual abuse.[42]

37. There are a number of opportunities to address this lacuna in law and policy to protect the interests of both animals and people:

1. Reducing animal abuse should form part of the Home Office’s strategy to reduce crime with appropriate support from Defra;

2. The maximum penalty for committing animal sexual offences contrary to s69 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as amended) should be increased to five years, and the scope of the offence should be expanded to encompass other forms of sexual contact with an animal[43]; and,

3. The most serious animal cruelty offences[44] should be added to schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure that violent animal abusers are 1. referred to the Violent and Sex Offender Register and 2. subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. These initiatives exist to protect individuals and communities from the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders, and that must include violent animal abusers.

38. The Kept Animals Bill, insofar as it affects companion animals, would 1. create a new dog attack offence against farmed animals, 2. create a new dog theft offence (with powers to expand the scope of that offence to other species), and, 3. create powers to prohibit the import of certain dogs, cats and ferrets, which - if utilised in the ways expected - would help prevent puppy smuggling, the transport of heavily pregnant females, and the import of mutilated dogs and cats.

39. Whilst these are all important measures that must be passed, there is clearly scope for the Kept Animals Bill to go further in protecting the welfare of companion animals. For example, the Kept Animals Bill could be utilised to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in the manner proposed under para 35 of this submission to ensure that seized companion animals can be rehabilitated and rehomed well before the conclusion of lengthy criminal proceedings. This would significantly improve the welfare of companion animals who have been abused or neglected. It could also be utilised to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Criminal Justice Act 2003 in the ways proposed under paras 37b-c to ensure 1. there are appropriate and consistent penalties available for animal sexual abuse and 2. communities are protected from violent animal abusers.

Part 4: Summary of recommendations

1. To prevent the continuation of low-welfare and criminal dog breeding activity, investigating authorities should be issued with guidance to seize canine semen from premises searched under warrant for suspected animal welfare offending where relevant.

2. The scope of dog breeding regulations should be expanded to ensure the welfare of all dogs kept and used for breeding purposes. In particular, stud dog-only businesses should be brought within regulatory scope to safeguard the welfare of male dogs used for breeding, including semen production.

3. The Government should provide clarification regarding premises registration requirements for businesses involved in pre-breeding testing of canine semen and remind businesses and individuals involved in the handling of canine semen of their responsibilities under animal health law. Businesses that fail to comply should be subject to enforcement action.

4. Great Britain should consider introducing a Brucellosis pre-screening requirement for imported canine semen given the recent increase in B. canis cases. The handling of canine semen by unregistered premises should be risk assessed from a public and animal health perspective.

5. The Government should issue guidance to 1. resolve any outstanding regulatory uncertainty about the application of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to canine assisted breeding procedures and tests, and 2. provide clarity about which enforcement body or bodies members of the public and veterinary profession should report concerns about suspected illegal veterinary surgery to.

6. Dog breeding regulations should be strengthened such that 1. the use of artificial insemination to breed from dogs who cannot mate due to inherited health issues is prohibited, and 2. breeding from female dogs who can reasonably be expected to experience birthing difficulties due to inherited health issues is prohibited.

7. The Kept Animals Bill should complete its passage through Parliament as a matter of urgency.

8. Regard for the health, welfare and temperament of future offspring should be an expectation of all people who are involved in intentional companion animal breeding in England and Wales. Powers available under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 should be utilised to achieve this and the LAIAR regime should be expanded to regulate additional companion animal breeding activities, including the breeding of cats and rabbits.

9. The penalties available under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 should be modernised and the Act should be amended to make it clear which statutory body is responsible for taking enforcement action against illegal veterinary surgery. As a minimum, available financial penalties should exceed the cost of complex veterinary surgeries to act as a meaningful deterrent.

10. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 should be amended so that where it is in the interests of the welfare of an animal/s taken into possession (and subject to providing the owner with a time-limited right of appeal), they can receive 1. appropriate veterinary treatment, 2. be rehomed and/or 3. be euthanised on welfare grounds before the conclusion of legal proceedings without the consent of the owner and without the need for a court order.

11. In light of the strength of evidence of the The Link between animal abuse and domestic violence, reducing animal abuse should form part of the Home Office’s strategy to reduce crime with appropriate support from Defra.

12. The maximum penalty for committing animal sexual offences contrary to s69 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as amended) should be increased to five years, and the scope of the offence should be expanded to encompass other forms of sexual contact with an animal.

13. The most serious animal cruelty offences should be added to schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure that violent animal abusers are 1. referred to the Violent and Sex Offender Register and 2. subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.

April 2023

9