Conclusion 1
Concluded (the committee's words)The Committee sees the introduction of this new regulation as an important step in preventing pet smuggling and is pleased the Government has acted on our recommendation.
Select committee: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Moving animals across borders
Closed
Opened 13 Jan 2021
Closed 26 Jan 2022
28 recommendations
17 conclusions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
As a result of the UK leaving the EU and being granted “national listed status” as a third country, the movement of animals across borders faces a raft of regulation changes. This means that exports of live animals (for slaughter and fattening) from Great Britain (GB) to the EU and Northern Ireland can continue, although the Government is proposing a ban. There are also changes to the requirements for pets travelling between GB and the EU or Northern Ireland, with GB-issued pet passports no longer valid for travel. Furthermore, from July, new border controls will be put in place by the UK, requiring imported horses entering GB to go through a Border Control Post. This inquiry scrutinises the impact of the new agreement and relationship with the EU on how animals can be moved across borders, focusing on live animal exports, equines (horses, ponies and donkeys) and domestic animals. The scope of the inquiry covers impacts on animal health including disease outbreak, economic interests, the capacity of the UK to adapt to new regulations, and the illegal movements of animals across borders. Read the call for evidence for more information about this inquiry.
Where it stands
The inquiry is closed, opened 13 January 2021.
The committee has published 1 report, most recently First Report - Moving animals across borders on 30 September 2021.
The government's response
Published 16 December 2021. The deadline was 30 November 2021.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government says it "shares many of the Committee's key concerns" and sets out its approach to pet smuggling, equine identification, livestock movements and biosecurity, agreeing with some recommendations and declining or qualifying others.
- On putting pet import bans in primary legislation, it says the Bill includes a power to restrict imports "via secondary legislation", and it is "working at pace" to deliver that legislation alongside the Bill.
- On moving pet checks from carriers to a Government agency, it says it has "no plans to change the current compliance checking arrangements" but will keep compliance and enforcement "under review".
- It plans a public consultation on equine identification, including further digitisation, "early in the new year". It says it will explore flexibility on 'high health status' horses but notes the Commission has been clear that third country rules apply.
- It "does not accept" that the ban on exports for slaughter will create longer journeys, and it will report back to the Committee within 12 months of implementation of livestock residency and identification requirements.
Recommendations and conclusions
- Conclusion 1Conclusion
- Conclusion 2Conclusion
- Recommendation 3Recommendation
Reports
- First Report - Moving animals across borders30 September 2021 · 45 items
Evidence
- 4 oral evidence sessionsLatest 29 June 2021
- 17 witnesses
Recent activity
- Fifth Special Report - Moving animals across borders: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2021–2216 December 2021, Report published
- First Report - Moving animals across borders30 September 2021, Report published
- Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee23 September 2021, Formal meeting (private meeting) · Room 21, Palace of Westminster
Recommendations and conclusions 45 shown
Conclusion 2
Concluded (the committee's words)We welcome the Government’s commitment to ban the import of pets younger than six-months-old, heavily pregnant pets, and pets that have been subject to poor animal welfare practices. We recognise the argument that ministers should be able to adapt regulations as science and intelligence evolve. However, we see no future where the movement of young animals, heavily pregnant animals or the import of animals which have been subject to poor welfare practices is acceptable. The need to prevent pet smuggling is serious and urgent, introducing these bans through later secondary legislation will only create further delays, enabling this illicit trade to continue.
Recommendation 3
Recommended (the committee's words)The Bill should maintain the flexibility to allow ministers to adapt to future science and intelligence, but Defra should include a ban on animals younger than six months, heavily pregnant animals, and animals which have been subject to poor welfare practices on the face of the Bill, rather than secondary legislation. It should include a clear definition of ‘heavily pregnant’. Putting these prohibitions in primary legislation would be a serious and sincere statement about the value the Government attaches to animal welfare.
Recommendation 4
Recommended (the committee's words)Currently pet smuggling is viewed as a low-risk and high reward crime. The UK must improve its deterrents against pet smuggling.
Recommendation 5
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should increase the sentences given to pet smugglers, including greater consideration of custodial sentences. Increasing prosecution rates must also be a priority, as prosecution rates are proportionately low given the estimated size of the trade. The Government should make use of its full suite of investigatory and enforcement powers to pursue the money generated from pet smuggling.
Recommendation 6
Recommended (the committee's words)It is the carriers not APHA staff who carry out most checks on pets at the border. Therefore, Defra should ensure that there is a legal obligation for the individual checking the animal to “visualise” the animal, making sure it matches the paperwork and microchip presented.
Conclusion 7
Concluded (the committee's words)Moving the responsibility for checking pets at the border from carriers to a Government Agency will prevent the conflict of interests that is inherent within carriers checking the pets of their customers.
Recommendation 8
Recommended (the committee's words)The responsibility for checking pets at the border should be shifted from carriers to a Government Agency like APHA or Border Force to ensure smuggling is dealt with effectively.
Conclusion 9
Concluded (the committee's words)Within Defra’s policies there is an increasing focus on the prevention of pet smuggling. However, this increased policy focus has not been matched by an increased prioritisation of the issue or increased funding within Border Force or APHA. Furthermore, we note above the need for responsibility for checking pets at borders to move from the carriers to Government agencies.
Recommendation 10
Recommended (the committee's words)Whichever of Border Force or APHA takes responsibility for checking pets must be properly resourced, and the Department should set out what steps it is taking within Government to ensure that this work is appropriately prioritised and resourced.
Conclusion 11
Concluded (the committee's words)It is unclear whether travellers have understood the requirements of the new pet travel regulation. There is a risk that as travellers wishing to take their pets abroad will be sent home at the border.
Recommendation 12
Recommended (the committee's words)Defra should continue its efforts to ensure travellers understand the new pet travel regulations. The current reduction in travel provides an opportunity to ensure no pet owner is turned back home at the border once travel increases.
Conclusion 13
Concluded (the committee's words)Regaining ‘part 1 listed’ under the EU’s Pet Travel Scheme will make taking pets to the EU and Northern Ireland easier and less costly.
Recommendation 14
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should engage with the EU and adopt a pragmatic stance in the pursuit of either ‘Part 1 listed’ status in the EU Pet Travel Scheme’, or an arrangement which is as close to ‘Part 1’ status as is possible within the current political context environment.
Recommendation 15
Recommended (the committee's words)A number of non-endemic canine diseases are on the rise in the UK. These pose a serious health risk to the UK pet population. There is a particular risk from street animals being rehomed in the UK and dogs which have been smuggled in. Leaving the EU gives the UK an opportunity to introduce regulations that will provide increased protection for animal health and biosecurity, the Government should act on this opportunity.
Recommendation 16
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should introduce pre-import screening for non-endemic diseases which threaten the UK pet population. This should be accompanied by the reinstalment of the UK’s tick and tapeworm treatment requirements that existed before the UK joined PETS. The UK should also introduce the rabies titre test as a way of ensuring animals have valid rabies vaccinations and the animal’s paperwork has not been forged. The UK’s biosecurity is being threatened now and these changes need to brought in as soon as possible.
Recommendation 17
Recommended (the committee's words)Britain is a leading player in the global equestrian market, which provides significant economic benefits to the UK. The Government must enable the expedited movement of ‘high health status’ horses across Europe to protect this industry. An agreement on high health status horses would benefit all parties involved and has been advocated by the British, Irish and French racing and breeding industries to the highest levels of the European Commission.
Recommendation 18
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should work with the EU to formulate an agreement on ‘high health status’ horses as quickly as possible. This agreement should be based on a system which is digital by design and easy to use. The Government should adopt a pragmatic and practical stance in pursuit of this goal.
Conclusion 19
Concluded (the committee's words)We have been told that there are horses being illicitly moved across Britain’s borders and being sent to slaughter under the guise of being sold for other purposes.
Recommendation 20
Recommended (the committee's words)Defra should investigate non-compliant horse movements and quantify the scale and causes of the practice. This work should take place in collaboration with industry groups like World Horse Welfare who have developed intelligence and expertise on horse smuggling. Once the scale of the issue has been identified, Defra should set out a plan to address it within a year, and no later.
Recommendation 21
Recommended (the committee's words)The current system of equine ID is not fit for purpose. Its outdated and fragmented paper systems enable fraud. A digital identification system would help to prevent horse smuggling and enable the expedited movement of ‘high health status’ horses. The mandatory microchipping of equines facilitates a digital identification system, which we believe is available at the moment. Defra should move to this system as a matter of urgency.
Recommendation 22
Recommended (the committee's words)The proposals put forward in Defra’s upcoming equine identification consultation should be digital by design and easy to use, except in exceptional circumstances, such as the studbook network which is vital for the support of native, rare and indigenous breeds. It is our understanding that these systems already exist within the industry. The Government should embrace these systems or guarantee interoperability with them. Alongside this new identification system Defra should develop a funded action plan to enforce the identification rules. The consultation should be published within the next three months and the action plan should be published within three months of the consultation’s conclusion.
Conclusion 23
Concluded (the committee's words)The current lack of border control posts approved to process live animal exports in European ports is an effective ban on the export of British livestock to mainland Europe. The Government’s strategy of incentivising the construction of border control posts by providing information on the value of the sector has not been successful.
Recommendation 24
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government must work more closely with the EU and commercial partners to ensure that border control posts capable of processing livestock are built immediately in Northern European ports.
Recommendation 25
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government must ensure border control posts capable of processing live animals are operational by March 2022. This date is an absolute deadline rather than a target. These posts should be geographically spread around the country and provide appropriate capacity to meet market demand to prevent overly long journey 38 Moving animals across borders times which endanger animal welfare. Defra should publish information relating to the location and capacity of specific border control posts by December 2021 to allow businesses to prepare for the March 2022 deadline.
Conclusion 26
Concluded (the committee's words)British breeding stock is an important export. We are concerned that the ban on export for slaughter and fattening has been interpreted as a ban on the export of all live animals, which may have led to EU partners not prioritising suitable border posts. This could damage the export of British breeding stock.
Recommendation 27
Recommended (the committee's words)Within a month of this report’s publication Defra should provide a clear statement of support for the ongoing export of British breeding stock, emphasizing that these exports will not be affected by the ban on export for slaughter and fattening.
Conclusion 28
Concluded (the committee's words)The movement of agricultural animals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a practice that has existed for generations, has been disrupted by the Northern Ireland Protocol. The residency, scrapie and ear tagging requirements risk jeopardising the genetic integrity of Northern Irish breeding stock. Although it is a small number of farm businesses that are affected, these are often small, independent, family run business and the impact of the restrictions could be catastrophic.
Conclusion 29
Concluded (the committee's words)The Committee welcomes the agreement between the Government and the Commission on residency requirements and ear tagging.
Recommendation 30
Recommended (the committee's words)However, the Government should monitor the implementation of the new systems to make sure they are fit for purpose and fully enable the movement of livestock from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. It should review these arrangements within 12 months of their implementation and report back to this committee.
Recommendation 31
Recommended (the committee's words)Furthermore, we welcome that the Government is working on a solution to the scrapie requirements, but a solution must be found immediately.
Recommendation 32
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should work with the EU to agree a derogation from the scrapie monitoring system, as quickly as possible. This derogation should provide adequate time for farmers to join the system. The Government should adopt a pragmatic and practical stance in pursuit of this goal.
Recommendation 33
Recommended (the committee's words)In the short-term Defra should extend the Movement Assistance Scheme to pay for scrapie testing. The new breeding season for sheep is about to start meaning the Government needs to find an immediate solution to allow breeding stock from Great Britain to enter into Northern Ireland. As such, the Movement Assistance Scheme should be extended for this purpose by October 2021.
Conclusion 34
Concluded (the committee's words)We welcome the ban on export for slaughter and fattening as an important step in protecting animal welfare. We understand that the number of animal movements this ban will affect is small, however, we are concerned that there may be unintended consequences. Particularly, that it may create longer journeys, which may increase costs for some UK farms and could have the unintended effect of worsening animal welfare. We are also concerned that this will prohibit the movement of livestock for breeding purposes.
Recommendation 35
Recommended (the committee's words)Defra should work with the organisations and businesses that will be affected by the ban on export for slaughter to ensure that the ban is introduced in a pragmatic way that will not adversely affect rural businesses or animal welfare.
Conclusion 36
Concluded (the committee's words)Supporting and bolstering the UK abattoirs network will benefit our food security and protect animal welfare. There is a direct link between the Government’s current policy of limiting journey times between the farm and abattoirs, and the need for a network of small and medium abattoirs spread geographically around the UK. Equally, small abattoirs must be commercially viable businesses, capable of supporting themselves.
Recommendation 37
Recommended (the committee's words)Defra should take action to protect small and medium abattoirs as a national strategic asset. These businesses should be supported and bolstered through the Future Farming Resilience Fund. Defra should set out and enact its approach to funding the UK abattoirs network as a strategic national asset within six months.
Conclusion 38
Concluded (the committee's words)Heavy handed regulations can overburden small and medium abattoirs, preventing them from being successful commercial enterprises.
Recommendation 39
Recommended (the committee's words)Defra should establish a small working group to assess how effectively and fairly regulations are being applied in small and medium abattoirs. This group should ensure regulations are sensible and maintain food hygiene standards without overloading businesses. This group should be established by December 2021.
Conclusion 40
Concluded (the committee's words)The Government’s proposals on ‘Improvements to animal welfare in Transport’ are well-meaning but flawed. They show a lack of understanding in how parts of the agricultural economy work and would have benefited from better co-design and consultation.
Recommendation 41
Recommended (the committee's words)We welcome that Defra is rethinking its proposals. Defra should ensure they work with the industry to develop its new proposals, making sure they protect animal welfare while being practical and realistic. It should publish the updated proposals by December 2021.
Conclusion 42
Concluded (the committee's words)Diseases do not recognise borders. Enhancing biosecurity protects animal, plant and human health. Although we have full faith in the Chief Veterinary Officer, it would be easier to monitor animal diseases in our closest neighbours if the UK regained access to the Animal Disease Notification System. ADNS is a quick and reliable system, and it would help to remove the opportunity for human error. Regaining access to the ADNS would also benefit our European neighbours as it would allow them to better monitor disease in the UK. This is a win, win situation. Failing to regain access could have catastrophic consequences for UK biosecurity, so
Recommendation 43
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should work with the EU to regain Britain’s access to the ADNS as a matter of urgency Defra should update this committee on its efforts .
Conclusion 44
Concluded (the committee's words)There is disagreement between Defra, the veterinary sector, and the Chief Veterinary Officer about whether there are enough veterinarians to carry out the increase in certification work which is required following the transition period.
Recommendation 45
Recommended (the committee's words)Government should closely monitor veterinary capacity alongside projections of six-month demand and publish statistics on a quarterly basis.
Reports
First Report - Moving animals across borders
- HC No.
- HC 79
- Published
- 30 Sep 2021
- Items
- 45
- Government response
- Government response published 16 December 2021 (deadline 30 November 2021). Read the government's response ↗
Oral evidence sessions
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Date | Session and witnesses | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 29 Jun 2021 |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Gareth Baynham Hughes · Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
Rt Hon The Lord Benyon · Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
View ↗ |
| 8 Jun 2021 |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Christine Middlemiss · Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
Ian Hewett · Animal and Plant Health Agency,
Steve Dann · Border Force
|
View ↗ |
| 18 May 2021 |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
David Bowles · RSPCA,
Jan Rogers · The Horse Trust,
Maggie Roberts · Cats Protection,
Mr Ross Hamilton · British Horseracing Authority,
Paula Boyden · Dogs Trust,
Roly Owers · World Horse Welfare
|
View ↗ |
| 20 Apr 2021 |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
James Russell · British Veterinary Association (BVA),
Malcolm Mitchell · Scottish Rural College,
Mr James West · Compassion in World Farming,
Professor Tim Morris,
Stuart Roberts · National Farmers Union,
Victor Chestnutt · Ulster Farmers' Union
|
View ↗ |
Who gave evidence
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Witness | Organisation | Sessions |
|---|---|---|
| Christine Middlemiss · Chief Veterinary Officer | Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | 1 |
| David Bowles · Head of Public Affairs and Campaigns | RSPCA | 1 |
| Gareth Baynham Hughes · Director of Animal and Plant Health | Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | 1 |
| Ian Hewett · interim Chief Executive | Animal and Plant Health Agency | 1 |
| James Russell · President | British Veterinary Association (BVA) | 1 |
| Jan Rogers · Director of Research and Policy | The Horse Trust | 1 |
| Maggie Roberts · Director of Veterinary Services | Cats Protection | 1 |
| Malcolm Mitchell · Professor of Physiology and Animal Welfare | Scottish Rural College | 1 |
| Mr James West · Senior Policy Manager UK | Compassion in World Farming | 1 |
| Mr Ross Hamilton · Head of Public Affairs | British Horseracing Authority | 1 |
| Paula Boyden · Veterinary Director | Dogs Trust | 1 |
| Professor Tim Morris | Not recorded | 1 |
| Roly Owers · Chief Executive Officer | World Horse Welfare | 1 |
| Rt Hon The Lord Benyon · Rural Affairs Minister | Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | 1 |
| Steve Dann · Director, National Operational Headquarters | Border Force | 1 |
| Stuart Roberts · Deputy President | National Farmers Union | 1 |
| Victor Chestnutt · President | Ulster Farmers' Union | 1 |
Meetings & visits
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Date | Type | Detail | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Sep 2021 | Formal meeting (private meeting) | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee · Room 21, Palace of Westminster |