The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions and convictions for offences under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, in England and Wales, up to December 2019, available in the ‘Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code’ data tool, which can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/938554/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2019.xlsx

In the data tool linked above, use the ‘Offence code’ filter to select the following offence code:

• 111/26 - Various summary offences contrary to regulations under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015. (And the Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2015).

Number of prosecutions will populate Row 31; number of convictions will populate Row 32.

Please note that this offence code includes offences under both Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 and Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2015. In order to identify defendants dealt with in England, specifically, use the ‘Police Force Area’ filter to select all options excluding those in Wales (i.e. Gwent, North Wales, South Wales and Dyfed-Powys).

The end of the transition period has opened up new opportunities for managing our own pet travel and commercial importation rules. We are actively listening to the concerns of stakeholders and the Government is considering options to strengthen our efforts to tackle puppy smuggling and prevent the low-welfare importation and movement of these animals, including looking at the movement of heavily pregnant dogs (bitches) entering Great Britain (GB).

These options will take into consideration the results from our latest disease risk assessments for GB, recommendations of stakeholders such as the British Veterinary Association and Dogs Trust, and recent Parliamentary work from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.

The end of the transition period has opened up new opportunities for managing our own pet travel and commercial importation rules. We are actively listening to the concerns of stakeholders and the Government is considering options to strengthen our efforts to tackle puppy smuggling and prevent the low-welfare importation and movement of these animals, including looking at the minimum age of dogs entering Great Britain (GB).

These options will take into consideration the results from our latest disease risk assessments for GB, recommendations of stakeholders such as the British Veterinary Association and Dogs Trust, and recent Parliamentary work from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.

The practice of mutilating dogs' ears is abhorrent and has rightly been banned in the UK for 15 years.

We already have some of the world's highest animal welfare standards. The end of the transition period has opened up new opportunities for managing our own pet travel and commercial importation rules. We are actively listening to the concerns of stakeholders and the Government is considering options regarding the importation and commercial movements of dogs with cropped ears into Great Britain in line with World Trade Organization rules.

Importers of animals must adhere to welfare standards as set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and in domestic legislation, The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 (WATEO). This legislation aims to protect the health and welfare of animals during transportation and applies to dogs that are suffering injury as a result of non-exempted mutilations including cropped ears.

The Government also continues to raise awareness regarding the improper selling of pets by deceitful sellers in the UK and abroad through our 'Petfished' campaign. This seeks to educate prospective pet buyers on common tricks and tactics used by deceitful sellers which may result in the purchase of a mistreated or unwell pet, including those that have been subject to cropping. The campaign urges buyers to mitigate risks, for example by buying from trusted sellers such as those under the Kennel Club's Assured Breeder scheme, viewing puppies with their mothers and siblings, asking questions of the seller and following the Animal Welfare Foundation and RSPCA Puppy Contract to ensure that puppies are in good health when purchased.

My department takes the issue of livestock worrying very seriously, recognising the distress this can cause farmers and animals, as well as the financial implications.

All reported crimes should be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (the 1953 Act) provides a specific offence of allowing a dog to worry livestock on any agricultural land with a maximum fine of £1,000.

For the purposes of the 1953 Act, a dog can be said to be worrying livestock if it attacks or chases livestock, or if it is at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. In this Act, the definition of “livestock” covers sheep, goats, swine, horses, asses, mules, poultry (including domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks), and cattle (including bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves).

In addition to the 1953 Act, the police can and do take action under the Dogs Act 1871 where there are dogs that are out of control and dangerous to other animals. Section 2 of the 1871 Act allows a complaint to be made to a Magistrate’s court by any individual, the police or local authorities, where a dog is “dangerous and not kept under proper control”. The court may make any Order it considers appropriate to require the owner to keep the dog under proper control, or if necessary, that it be destroyed. The court may specify measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, such as muzzling and remaining on a lead when in public.

Guidance is available to educate owners about handling their dogs responsibly in the vicinity of livestock, in order to prevent the occurrence of attacks or chasing.

The statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs clearly sets out that all dogs need to be trained to behave well, ideally from a very young age and should be introduced gradually and positively to different environments, people and animals. The Code asks owners to ensure that they prevent their dogs from chasing or attacking any other animals, including livestock and horses; for example, through use of a lead or avoidance of such situations.

Natural England has recently published a refreshed version of the Countryside Code: advice for countryside visitors, which is available online at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-countryside-code/the-countryside-code-advice-for-countryside-visitors. A copy is also attached to this answer. Both the short and long versions of the Countryside Code make specific reference to keeping dogs under control and in sight to make sure they stay away from wildlife, livestock, horses and other people unless invited. The Code helpfully sets out certain legal requirements, encouraging visitors to always check local signs as there are situations when you must keep your dog on a lead for all or part of the year. An associated campaign will run throughout 2021, which will include a broader conversation with stakeholders about what a ‘post Covid’ Code for the 21st century would look like and how to promote more awareness and positive behaviour.

In light of the relevant legislation and statutory guidance available, the Government does not consider it necessary to introduce any additional requirement for dogs to be on a lead when near livestock.

What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on reducing dog thefts.

I recently met the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor in March to discuss the important issue of pet theft. As a result of that meeting, officials from across the three Departments have been tasked with developing solutions that tackle this issue effectively. The work of the pet theft taskforce has already begun, with officials drawing together available data and evidence.

I recently met the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor in March to discuss the important issue of pet theft. As a result of that meeting, officials from across the three Departments have been tasked with developing solutions that tackle this issue effectively. The work of the pet theft taskforce has already begun, with officials drawing together available data and evidence.

The Secretary of State, I am sure, has a comprehensive understanding of this issue, which causes undue distress to people and affects dogs, cats and all manner of other pets. This week, for example, Cats Protection told me that cat theft is up threefold since 2015. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will back my amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which deal with pet theft and introduce tough sentences for those whose actions devastate so many families?

I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that for those committing the theft it may be a financial issue, but for those who have their pets stolen this is really a loss of a valued member of their family. I give credit to The Star newspaper in Sheffield, which has highlighted a growing number of these incidents, and the heartbreak and anguish it causes people to lose their valued pet. Will the Secretary of State accept that this is a different sort of crime to the normal theft of a possession, and that, as such, it needs a different, specific offence with specific and tougher penalties enacted for those who commit it?

The legislation on increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty is nearing its completion. I have a high degree of confidence that we will be able to get it through before the end of the Session. Indeed, we will say more about that over the next day or so.

Pet theft is on the rise, partly because of the demand for pets through lockdown. When gangs steal a pet, they cause harm not only to the pet, but to the families who miss it. We still do not have the five-year sentencing for animal cruelty, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has been trying his best to get through. In the next Parliament, can we not only have that five-year sentencing for cruelty but link in dog theft to the legislation?

We are aware that there are some reports of a significant increase in the incidence of pet theft. A number of organisations say that reports of it are doubling, and the official figures show a sharp increase, albeit from a relatively low base. We are looking at the issue, and that is why we established the pet theft taskforce. There is already the possibility of a maximum sentence of seven years for aggravated offences, particularly where there is emotional distress, which clearly there is in the case of pets. We are reviewing this particular area of law.

It is a different type of offence in that there is emotional stress on the owner of the pet, but there can also be stress and effects on the welfare of the animal. That is why, in the current sentencing guidelines, the courts can take account of an aggravated offence with emotional distress, and the maximum penalty could be as high as seven years. We have asked the pet theft taskforce to look at this issue more closely and assemble the evidence to consider whether anything further is required.

I refer the Hon Gentleman to the answer I gave to a question from my Hon Friend, the Member for Bosworth on 22 March (UIN 913720)

The law on the breeding of dogs was updated and improved in 2018. One of the reasons for updating the laws on dog breeding was to crack down on unscrupulous breeders who breed dogs purely for financial greed at the expense of the welfare of the dogs.

Under The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (the 2018 Regulations) anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs and/or who breeds three or more litters in a twelve month period needs to have a valid licence from their local authority. This prevents breeders claiming they are non-commercial in order to avoid being licensed.

Under the 2018 Regulations local authorities have powers to grant, refuse or revoke a licence. Licencees must achieve and maintain statutory minimum animal welfare standards, linked to the welfare needs of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and licensed breeders are prevented from breeding dogs if it can be reasonably expected that on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health, this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies.

Additionally, the commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens was banned in England from 6 April 2020. This prevents pet shops, pet dealers and other commercial outlets from selling these animals in England unless they themselves have bred them. It means anyone looking to get a puppy or kitten must buy direct from a breeder or consider adopting from a rescue centre instead.

In addition to, and ahead of, the ban coming into force, my Department launched a national communications campaign (Petfished) to raise awareness of issues associated with low-welfare and illegal supply of pets. This includes providing clear signposting on where responsible breeders and rehoming centres can be found and encouraging prospective buyers to research the seller thoroughly before they visit and decide to purchase. The campaign provides a list of red flags for buyers to look out for when searching for a pet online.

Together, the legislative changes and Petfished campaign, are helping to raise awareness for and tackle issues of poor quality breeding practices. This is particularly relevant for Pugs, French Bulldogs and other brachycephalic or flat faced breeds which have become increasingly popular in the UK but whose conformation is associated with several health issues including breathing difficulties, skin fold infections and difficulty giving birth.

Meanwhile my Department continues to follow closely the work of the Brachycephalic Working Group which aims to raise awareness of the health problems relating to brachycephalic breeds and identify ways in which their health and welfare can be improved.

My Department takes the issue of livestock worrying very seriously, recognising the distress this can cause farmers and animals, as well as the financial implications.

All reported crimes should be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 provides a specific offence of allowing a dog to worry livestock with a maximum fine of £1,000.

The report published by the National Chiefs’ Police Council, as well as other recent reports on livestock worrying, have recommended reforming the 1953 Act to address current enforcement challenges and ensure it remains fit for purpose. We are currently engaging closely with key stakeholders to improve our understanding of the scale of the issue and the views of both livestock keepers and dog owners. That includes considering the effectiveness of this law and opportunities to reduce the occurrence of livestock worrying.

In addition to the 1953 Act, the police can and do take action under the Dogs Act 1871 where there are dogs that are out of control and dangerous to other animals. Section 2 of the 1871 Act allows a complaint to be made to a Magistrate’s court by any individual, the police or local authorities, where a dog is “dangerous and not kept under proper control”. The court may make any Order it considers appropriate to require the owner to keep the dog under proper control, or if necessary, that it be destroyed. The court may specify measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, such as muzzling and remaining on a lead when in public.

Guidance is available to educate owners about handling their dogs responsibly in the vicinity of livestock, in order to prevent the occurrence of attacks or chasing.

The statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs provides owners with information on how to provide for their dog’s natural needs as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Code of Practice explains how to handle dogs responsibly in the vicinity of other animals, including livestock, in order to prevent the occurrence of attacks or chasing. It also clearly sets out that all dogs need to be trained to behave well, ideally from a very young age and should be introduced gradually and positively to different environments, people and animals. If owners become aware of changes in behaviour, or their dog is fearful of, or aggressive, towards other dogs and people, they should avoid the situations which lead to this and seek veterinary advice. The Code asks owners to ensure that they prevent their dogs from chasing or attacking any other animals, including livestock and horses; for example, through use of a lead or avoidance of such situations.

Natural England has recently published a refreshed version of the Countryside Code: advice for countryside visitors (www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-countryside-code/the-countryside-code-advice-for-countryside-visitors). Both the short and long versions of the Countryside Code make specific reference to keeping dogs under control and in sight to make sure they stay away from wildlife, livestock, horses and other people unless invited. The Code helpfully sets out certain legal requirements, encouraging visitors to always check local signs as there are situations when you must keep your dog on a lead for all or part of the year. An associated campaign will run throughout 2021, which will include a broader conversation with stakeholders about what a ‘post Covid’ Code for the 21st century would look like and how to promote more awareness and positive behaviour.

APHA have competed a report in the Trade Control and Expert System and the Post Import Management System, and have not identified any matching consignments of these imports for 2020 or 2021.

As dogs from Northern Ireland moving to Great Britain do not require any notification or health certification, we are not able to provide any data regarding this.

The Government is aware of various proposals which have been made to amend the Game Act. and will continue its discussions with all those concerned, whilst considering what further action could be taken.