---

Pet Passports

I am grateful to you, Mr. Caton, and to the previous Speaker for allocating me this debate. It is good that we will have an extra five minutes. I welcome the Minister to his seat. Like me, he will know that we are a nation of animal lovers, which is a good thing, so the issues that we are debating will be of great concern to many of our constituents throughout the country. I must confess that I did not know a great deal about the pet passport scheme until one of my constituents came to me a couple of months ago with a rather awful story about what had happened to her and her pet. I will say at the outset that officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have tried to be as helpful as possible to my constituent. I am grateful to them for that, but I believe that their hands might have been tied to a certain extent. By the end of next month, my constituent will have been parted from her much-loved pet for a total of 13 months. The dog has been outside the UK for two six-month quarantine periods. The total cost to my constituent of keeping her dog outside the country now approaches £8,000. Many pet owners would not be able to afford that, so when such things go wrong, sadly, it can effectively be the death sentence of the pets concerned. I accept that the case is an unusual one, but having listened to what my constituent told me and done some research, I have realised that numerous people fall foul of the rules of the pet passport scheme every year. Before I describe in more detail what happened to my constituent, it might be helpful if I run through the four general policy areas that that sad saga has illuminated, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on them. I spoke to his private office early this morning, to be as helpful as possible so that our debate could be constructive. The first general question is how much discretion the Secretary of State has in such matters. In the case of my constituent, I think that the DEFRA officials generally recognised that the dog posed absolutely no risk whatever to the health of anyone—human or animal—in the United Kingdom. The dog had had four different blood tests under two different microchips. It was a British dog and had originated in the UK, which is of course rabies-free—a significant point. I am aware that the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion on at least two occasions to allow the strict requirements of the pet travel scheme to be waived. They were two distressing cases in which it was right for the Secretary of State to act as he did. My constituent was told by the Minister's officials that her last hope was for the Secretary of State to authorise a risk assessment in her case. I pressed the Secretary of State hard to do so, but the letter that I received said that it was not possible. My constituent and I are a little unclear about how much discretion the Secretary of State has. As I said, it was recognised that the dog in question did not pose any risk to public health in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on that slight uncertainty. The second general point that I want to put on the record and make pet owners aware of is that, in a minority of cases, people will not be able to bring their much-loved animals back into the UK, which could cause extreme distress and upset. In the vast majority of cases, there are no problems. However, according to Department figures, in 2007, about 4,800 pets fell foul of the scheme and had various problems. There were some problems with microchips, as happened with my constituent. Another 1,300 cases were listed as "any other reason". People should be aware that, in recent years, the number of people who are faced with such problems has risen to just below 5,000 a year. It is significant that pet insurance now covers the cost of quarantine for pet owners who are forced to pay huge sums like the £8,000 that my constituent faced. That should alert us to the issue. I am pleased to put this matter on the public record, so that people are aware of the risk. Although the risk is small, some people may not want to take it if their pets are so important that they could not bear to be parted from them. The third area of public policy that I want to probe the Minister on is the six-month quarantine that we insist on for animals coming into the country. The helpful briefing on this debate that I received from the British Veterinary Association said that Nigel Gibbens, the chief veterinary officer, Professor Phil Craig of the university of Salford and Dr. Dilys Morgan of the Health Protection Agency have stressed the need for the current UK requirements to continue. Those requirements are exercised under a derogation from the European Union scheme. However, those people who are much more qualified on such issues than I am support the requirements only because of the problem of tapeworms, specifically the E. multilocularis tapeworm. Is that tapeworm the reason why the UK has a six-month quarantine and is not part of the general European pet passport scheme? We stand with only Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Finland in having a derogation that allows us to have tougher enforcement provisions. The fourth and final general area of policy that this debate can usefully highlight is about United Kingdom dogs. The UK is thankfully rabies-free, and we must take the proper measures to ensure that we stay rabies-free. Dogs that originate from the UK will have had all the correct vaccinations, blood tests and microchips. When British originated dogs return to the UK from abroad, is there not a case for treating them slightly differently to dogs from the rest of the EU, where rabies is still a problem? It is principally a problem in Romania and Latvia, and is thankfully much less of a problem in the rest of mainland Europe. I wonder whether discretion could be exercised in that area, perhaps in relation to my first point on the general discretion that the Secretary of State is allowed. Those are the four issues that I want to raise. My constituent's case was tragic. There were two errors, neither of which were her fault. They were innocent errors; they were not made deliberately. The first error was made by a vet after the dog's original microchip came out. A blood test was done after a new microchip was inserted. I understand that a revaccination should have taken place at that point. The dog was then moved to America and had a subsequent blood test there at a local reputable laboratory. However, I understand that the legislation states that the Department accepts only one laboratory in the whole of the United States of America as being valid as far as re-entry into the United Kingdom is concerned. That situation caused the second six-month sentence for the dog, which is currently in Sweden. It is quite a well travelled dog; it has been half way around the world. I am informed that, on 29 July, the dog will be warmly reunited with its owner who has been resigned to waiting for the past month. In essence, that is what happened to my constituent. She has done a lot of research on this general area, and she has pointed me in the direction of a written answer from the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who responded on 26 November 2008 to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). It is wonderful that our constituents have all this information available through the internet, because they can see exactly what we are up to—the questions that we ask and the answers given by Departments. The Minister's predecessor said:""Our current controls may no longer be proportionate to the risk of rabies entering the UK."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 1621W.]" The excellent officials who are sitting behind the Minister obviously advised his predecessor on that. I would be interested to hear his comments on the matter. I do not want to push the Department to do one thing or another. I am not scientifically qualified and I am not a vet, but I am aware of the rabies risk in this country, and I am here in an interrogatory mode to try to get answers to some of those questions. A final related issue is, again, of great significance to disabled constituents, particularly those who have difficulty with their sight or require assistance. I briefed the Minister on that matter this morning. I should like to express my appreciation of the work of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which contacted me to let me know about the difficulties with certain airlines and airports in relation to allowing assistance dogs to travel with their owners who need assistance within the stipulation of the pet passport scheme. I am informed that that issue relates to the European regulation on the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, which was introduced in July 2008. The regulation requires European airlines to carry guide dogs and other assistance dogs in the cabin of the aircraft with their owner at no extra charge, subject to national rules, such as the UK pet travel scheme. That all sounds well and good. In the United Kingdom, Birmingham, Bristol, Luton, Stansted, Doncaster, Glasgow, London Gatwick, London Heathrow and Manchester airports are all approved. However, that is not quite as good as it sounds, because I further understand that although Luton, Stansted and Bristol airports are approved, none of the airlines that have sought approval for their routes fly into them. We seem to be stuck in a bit of an impasse, because people who quite properly should be able to travel with their assistance dogs face a two-stage hurdle: they have to get clearance from the airport and the airline. Will the Minister say whether he is making the airports and airlines feel the heat a little on this issue? Are they delaying in some way? Luton airport, which is close to my constituency and serves a large number of my constituents, has done the right thing. What pressure is the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Transport putting on those airlines that fly in and out of Luton to make sure that they do the right thing? Edinburgh jumps out as being an airport that is not on the list of nine approved airports. Perhaps the Minister can tell me what he is doing to make Edinburgh airport do what the other airports have done. I shall draw my remarks to a close. Again, I express my gratitude to you, Mr. Caton, and to the former Speaker for allowing me to raise these issues in this land of animal lovers, and I look forward to the Minister responding as helpfully as he can to the various points that I have made.