There are several pieces of legislation and guidance that affect the control and welfare of all animals, including dogs. It is difficult to be precise about numbers given that apparently unrelated legislation can have an effect on dogs (e.g. hygiene laws).

We have not had any discussions with the Israeli authorities over this issue. We do understand, however, that the Operations Commander in the Central Command of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has ordered a halt to the use of dogs in arrest missions until the procedure is reviewed. The IDF is investigating an incident in which IDF soldiers used dogs to stop Palestinians accused of stone-throwing near Hebron. An IDF official said the soldiers’ behaviour was improper, and would be met with disciplinary measures.

We are taking action to tackle the illegal puppy trade focused on three areas.

The Dogs Trust’s report highlights that responsibility for stopping the illegal movement of puppies begins in the country where they are born. The UK Chief Veterinary Officer wrote to the authorities in the countries highlighted in the report and follow up action has been taken. We will continue to alert the authorities in any Member State where we become aware of issues in relation to the operation of the pet travel scheme.

“Secondly, we will maintain effective border controls. Every pet entering Great Britain is checked for compliance with the EU pet travel scheme and in 2014 checks were carried out on over 170,000 dogs, cats and ferrets. Stringent penalties are in place where people are found to be breaking the rules.”

Thirdly, the illegal trade is driven by demand for cheap, pedigree puppies and we have published guidance on the steps pet owners can take to avoid buying an illegally imported pet: https://www.gov.uk/buying-a-cat-or-dog. We are also working with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group who have developed minimum standards for on-line pet advertisers which have led to the removal of over 130,000 problematic adverts in the last year.

The Dogs Trust has been invited to meet with the Minister for animal welfare to discuss their report ‘The Puppy Smuggling Scandal’.

Dangerous dogs law is concerned with protecting the safety of the public. The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 reflects the amendments made by section 107 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The intention is to remedy the situation created by the High Court decision in R (Sandhu) v Isleworth Crown Court [2012]. The 2015 Order returns the position on ownership of four types of prohibited dogs broadly to where it was before that judgment. The four types of dog are prohibited because they are of a type bred for fighting. The 2015 Order requires a court, when considering whether to exempt a prohibited dog, to take into account whether the intended keeper is a “fit and proper person” and other matters such as suitability of accommodation.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 states that no person shall give away, sell, or exchange a prohibited dog. The Sandhu judgment was seen as allowing keepership of exempted prohibited dogs to be transferred to anyone else by the owner with no supervision by the courts or by the Index of Exempted Dogs (which maintains a register of exempted prohibited dogs and liaises with the police.) The 2015 Order prevents exempted prohibited dogs from being transferred in such a way but allows change of keepership where the existing owner has died or has become seriously ill.

The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 recognises that owning and keeping a prohibited dog is a significant responsibility. These dogs are bred for fighting and Parliament has agreed that there should be restrictions and conditions on their ownership in order to protect public safety. The court plays an important role in determining whether a prohibited dog is a danger to public safety and must take into account whether the person intending to be in charge of the dog is a fit and proper person. The expectation of Parliament is that the person approved by the court will have day-to-day responsibility for the dog. There is a limit on how long a prohibited dog can be kept away from its home under the supervision of the person approved by the court. This ensures that the dog is kept in suitable accommodation at premises known to the police and is under the supervision of the court-approved person at all times.

A public consultation exercise on a package of measures aimed at promoting more responsible dog ownership ran from 23 April to 15 June 2012. This included aspects of the 2015 Order including provisions to enable seized suspected prohibited dogs not considered by the police to be a danger to public safety to be returned to their owner, subject to conditions, pending a court judgment on the fate of the dog. These provisions were widely supported. The keepership elements the 2015 Order return the law more closely to the position agreed by Parliament before the judgment in

R (Sandhu) v Isleworth Crown Court [2012] and address issues of public safety. The police were consulted on these provisions. Dogs Trust was consulted on the changes relating to insurance of owners of prohibited dogs.

In its response to the EFRA Committee pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Government made clear it would be bringing forward an Order to prescribe the limited circumstances when transfer of keepership of a prohibited dog is permitted. The issue was also covered in the fact sheets accompanying the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill during its passage through Parliament.

The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 recognises that owning and keeping a prohibited dog is a significant responsibility. These dogs are bred for fighting and Parliament has agreed that there should be restrictions and conditions on their ownership in order to protect public safety. The court plays an important role in determining whether a prohibited dog is a danger to public safety and must take into account whether the person intending to be in charge of the dog is a fit and proper person. The expectation of Parliament is that the person approved by the court will have day-to-day responsibility for the dog. There is a limit on how long a prohibited dog can be kept away from its home under the supervision of the person approved by the court. This ensures that the dog is kept in suitable accommodation at premises known to the police and is under the supervision of the court-approved person at all times.

A public consultation exercise on a package of measures aimed at promoting more responsible dog ownership ran from 23 April to 15 June 2012. This included aspects of the 2015 Order including provisions to enable seized suspected prohibited dogs not considered by the police to be a danger to public safety to be returned to their owner, subject to conditions, pending a court judgment on the fate of the dog. These provisions were widely supported. The keepership elements the 2015 Order return the law more closely to the position agreed by Parliament before the judgment in

R (Sandhu) v Isleworth Crown Court [2012] and address issues of public safety. The police were consulted on these provisions. Dogs Trust was consulted on the changes relating to insurance of owners of prohibited dogs.

In its response to the EFRA Committee pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Government made clear it would be bringing forward an Order to prescribe the limited circumstances when transfer of keepership of a prohibited dog is permitted. The issue was also covered in the fact sheets accompanying the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill during its passage through Parliament.

Businesses have a duty of care to make sure that waste, including dog faecal matter, is managed and disposed of in a way which does not cause harm to human health and the environment. Dog faecal matter may only be disposed of at a site in accordance with an environmental permit or registered exemption, under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

There is existing guidance on the disposal of dog faecal matter provided by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH). The CIEH Model Licence Conditions and Guidance for Dog Breeding Establishments is available at: http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=50814.

Border Force currently has four detector dogs in use at ports and airports in Great Britain trained to detect meat and other animal products illegally imported from non EU countries. This number can fluctuate as dogs are replaced through ill health or retirement and new dogs and handlers are trained.

The dogs are deployed on a mobile and flexible basis according to risk and where they will have the most impact. They are deployed at key border locations such as Heathrow Airport and can be utilised at any port, airport or other point of entry into Great Britain.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland is responsible for detecting illegal imports of meat and other animal products at ports and airports in Northern Ireland.

Defra officials have regular discussions with the police on the operation of law on dog control and welfare. The police are very supportive of the new provisions on compulsory dog microchipping and are fully aware of the measures in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to tackle dog fighting.

Any allegations of criminal behaviour should be reported to the police in the first instance, so that they can decide whether to instigate a criminal investigation.

We have also been working with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group who have been lobbying operators of internet sites to adopt minimum standards for the advertising of pet animals. This work includes identifying adverts for dogs used in organised dog fighting by spotting certain key or code words and removing the offending notices.

The introduction of compulsory microchipping for all dogs from April 2016 will help to reduce the chances of dogs being displaced, including through being stolen. It is already best practice for vets, re-homing centres, dog wardens etc. to scan strays and they have a duty of care to do so. Our guidance will emphasise this. But we also recognise that scanning all dogs can have significant costs and practical implications.

There are no legal restrictions on dogs which have been de-barked outside the UK being kept for breeding, supply or use in procedures at scientific establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

However we consider that the Establishment Licence Standard Condition 4(2) ‘Any restrictions on the extent to which an animal can satisfy its physiological and ethological needs shall be kept to the minimum’ is relevant and we would strongly discourage stakeholders considering doing it for welfare and reputational risk reasons. We are not aware of any such dogs being kept at establishments licensed under the 1986 Act.

The Home Office would not authorise the cutting of vocal cords of dogs under the 1986 Act. We cannot envisage any scenario where that would be acceptable unless it were for the health and well-being of the individual animal with the procedure conducted under Veterinary Surgeons Act.

We take evidence of the illegal importation of pets very seriously. The action we are taking to tackle this trade is focused on three areas.

Firstly, responsibility for stopping the illegal movement of puppies begins in the country where they are born, and my officials continue to raise instances of abuse of the pet travel scheme with the relevant countries.

Secondly, we will maintain effective border controls. The UK carries out more checks on pets at the border than most other EU member states and stringent penalties are in place where people are found to be breaking the rules.

Thirdly, the illegal trade is driven by demand for cheap, pedigree puppies and we have published guidance on the steps pet owners can take to avoid buying an illegally imported pet: https://www.gov.uk/buying-a-cat-or-dog.

The Dogs Trust has been invited to meet with the Minister for animal welfare to discuss their report ‘The Puppy Smuggling Scandal’.

The action we are taking to tackle this trade is focused on three areas:

Firstly, responsibility for stopping the illegal movement of puppies begins in the country where they are born, where the authorities have a duty to ensure that the welfare of pets intended for sale is safeguarded and that EU pet passports are issued correctly. Following a recent report by the Dogs Trust ‘The Puppy Smuggling Scandal’ published in November 2014 the Chief Veterinary Officer wrote to the authorities in the countries highlighted in the report and follow up action has been taken. My officials will continue to act on reports of abuse of the pet travel scheme.

Secondly, we will maintain effective border controls. The UK carries out more checks on pets at the border than most other EU member states and stringent penalties are in place where people are found to be breaking the rules.

Thirdly, the illegal trade is driven by demand for cheap pedigree puppies and we have published guidance on the steps pet owners can take to avoid buying an illegally imported pet: https://www.gov.uk/buying-a-cat-or-dog. We are also working with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group who have developed minimum standards for on-line pet advertisers and which have led to the removal of over 130,000 problematic adverts in the last year.

The draft Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 have recently been debated in both Houses and will come into force shortly. The regulations require that all keepers of dogs must, by April 2016, have their dogs microchipped. Welfare groups and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have already taken steps to raise awareness of that requirement, and DEFRA will continue to work closely with vets and charities to highlight the new requirement.

What steps she has taken to ensure that people are aware that by 2016 it will be a legal requirement to microchip their dog.

The first thing to note is that about 70% of dogs in this country are already microchipped under the voluntary scheme. Our judgment is that we now need to make it compulsory to get to the remaining 30%. We will take a proportionate approach to penalties. In the first instance, somebody will be given an enforcement notice, not a penalty, and 21 days to comply.

Charities are doing a great deal to raise awareness. Officials pointed out to me this morning that a recent edition of The Beano included a storyline put there by the Dogs Trust in which Gnasher had a microchip installed.

In a number of western countries where microchipping has been compulsory, fewer dogs are microchipped than in the UK where it has been voluntary. What is the maximum penalty that will be imposed on anyone who fails to comply?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is very distressing for families when they have a loved pet stolen. Compulsory microchipping of all dogs will make it far easier to detect such crimes, and we will issue guidance to vets and others that if they suspect a dog might have been stolen, they should report that to the relevant authorities.