Dr Danny Chambers

Clarity about the fact that there is no excuse for having a dog with cropped ears should make prosecution and enforcement of the law a lot more straightforward. I will read out a message that I received from a veterinary colleague last night: “Just saw for repeat meds check this week, 3yo cropped Doberman, imported but clearly was very young and Owner was not given any passport or papers. He had his ears cropped (supposedly done abroad before being imported, but was probably done in the UK). Lovely bright dog until anyone puts a hand towards his head when it will explode with aggression. Big enough dog to be life threatening if a child approached him. Now exists near permanently muzzled and dosed up on Prozac. It’s maddening, frustrating and pitiful all at the same time.”  Cutting a dog’s ears off with no anaesthetic is obviously physically harmful, but it can also affect the dog’s psychology for the rest of their life, so they will not let anyone go near their head. It is quite interesting; we know that dogs love to be stroked, particularly on their heads, and studies show that both a human’s and a dog’s cortisol levels go down when a human pets a dog. The relationship is mutual and symbiotic. Depriving an animal of that type of relationship for the rest of its life is really upsetting. What is the point in owning a dog if you cannot even stroke it? It is a real shame. There is no reason to mutilate an animal in this way. It is a cruel practice, only carried out for aesthetic reasons, and the Bill will help us to close that loophole for good. The Bill was amended in Committee to allow the appropriate authority to exempt pet owners from the new requirements in articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation in exceptional and compelling circumstances. This aims to ensure that the new measures will not disadvantage protected groups such as assistance dog users. It will also provide flexibility in emergency situations, such as cases where genuine owners can no longer travel within five days of their pets, for example because they have a medical emergency. I know that has caused some concern, and I reassure hon. Members that it is intended for use in limited circumstances, which must be exceptional or compelling. Exemptions sought will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the Government have provided reassurances that no blanket exemptions will be granted. Finally, in Committee the Bill was amended to remove the power that would have enabled the Secretary of State to make consequential changes that might have been required as a result of changes that the Bill makes to the pet travel rules and corresponding commercial import rules. Further consideration of the legislation has taken place since the Bill was introduced, and we have greater confidence that no further consequential amendments will be required. Should further changes to the pet travel schemes legal framework be needed, the Government may be able to make them using existing powers in other legislation. The Bill will play a pivotal role in disrupting the cruel pet smuggling trade, a shared objective of Members from across the House. It has been a joy to see the House united on animal welfare, and to see the commitment to working together across parties to end puppy smuggling. I urge all Members to support these crucial measures.