Agenda item
Ban on Puppy Farms
Councillor Skelt will propose and Councillor Adcock will second that:
Tewkesbury Council believes Puppy Farms – in which dogs are bred purely for profit with little concern for their welfare – are cruel and inhumane. They are often run illegally without the correct licensing and monitoring from the local Council.
Dogs on puppy farms are more likely to be over-bred, kept in poor conditions and not receive adequate food or vet care. Research from the Naturewatch Foundation estimates that 400,000 farmed puppies are brought every year in the UK.
Tewkesbury Borough Council fully supports efforts to crack down on illegal puppy farms, such as the introduction of ‘Lucy’s Law’ in 2020 banning the third-party sale of puppies in the first six months of their life. Tewkesbury Borough Council expresses its disappointment in the Government’s decision in May 2023 to break its promise to introduce a ‘Kept Animals Bill’ to add further protections to prevent dogs from being exploited on puppy farms.
Tewkesbury Borough Council recognises the legal role it has to provide licenses to all dog breeders who sell puppies for a profit. Tewkesbury Borough Council further believes it can help make sure those wishing to buy puppies do so from reputable, licensed breeders.
The Council therefore agrees to:
· Publish an up to date list of locally licensed dog breeders on its website so local residents who wish to buy a puppy are signposted to reputable breeders.
· Undertake a dedicated publicity campaign to raise awareness of illegal puppy breeding and signs to look for when buying a puppy that suggest it might come from a puppy farm, and how to report suspicious activity.
· Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling for the Kept Animals Bill to be revived to make it more difficult for puppy farmers to operate.
Minutes:
75.9 The Mayor referred to the Notice of Motion, as set out on the Agenda, and indicated that, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, it was necessary for the Council firstly to decide whether it wished to debate and determine the Motion at this evening’s meeting, or whether it wished to refer the Motion, without debate, to a Committee for consideration with authority either to make a decision on the matter or bring a recommendation back to Council.
75.10 Upon being proposed and seconded, it was
RESOLVED That the Motion would be discussed at this evening’s meeting.
75.11 It was proposed and seconded that Tewkesbury Council believes puppy farms – in which dogs are bred purely for profit with little concern for their welfare – are cruel and inhumane. They are often run illegally without the correct licensing and monitoring from the local Council. Dogs on puppy farms are more likely to be over-bred, kept in poor conditions and not receive adequate food or vet care. Research from the Naturewatch Foundation estimates that 400,000 farmed puppies are brought every year in the UK. Tewkesbury Borough Council fully supports efforts to crack down on illegal puppy farms, such as the introduction of ‘Lucy’s Law’ in 2020 banning the third-party sale of puppies in the first six months of their life. Tewkesbury Borough Council expresses its disappointment in the Government’s decision in May 2023 to break its promise to introduce a ‘Kept Animals Bill’ to add further protections to prevent dogs from being exploited on puppy farms. Tewkesbury Borough Council recognises the legal role it has to provide licenses to all dog breeders who sell puppies for a profit. Tewkesbury Borough Council further believes it can help make sure those wishing to buy puppies do so from reputable, licensed breeders. The Council therefore agrees to publish an up to date list of locally licensed dog breeders on its website so local residents who wish to buy a puppy are signposted to reputable breeders; undertake a dedicated publicity campaign to raise awareness of illegal puppy breeding and signs to look for when buying a puppy that suggest it might come from a puppy farm, and how to report suspicious activity and instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling for the Kept Animals Bill to be revived to make it more difficult for puppy farmers to operate.
75.12 In speaking to the Motion, the proposer of the Motion stated that the UK was a nation of animal lovers and many of her fellow Councillors in this room would have a pet; they brought them into their homes and most treated them like one of the family. As an owner-servant of rescued animals she could not imagine the trauma they may have faced in their young lives and the lack of understanding of what was happening to them. Dogs in puppy farms could lose their fur from the stress and their teeth from horrific neglect. Female dogs often spent their entire lives in puppy farms, knowing no love and being able to give no love as their puppies were often taken immediately after birth. Puppy farms were a money-making machine only, the pups and parents were often, if not always, cared for improperly and ended up with behavioural issues and other medical issues. This was an appalling way to treat animals and must not be allowed to continue. It was estimated that up to 25% of puppies sold in the UK were born in puppy farms according to the RSPCA. Illegal breeders could make millions of pounds rearing pups in dirty conditions, without food or water. They would not have seen a vet or had important preventative healthcare like vaccines or treatment for fleas and worms. There had been cases involving sick or dying puppies that were sold to unsuspecting members of the public for hundreds of pounds each. Members could help point potential dog owners in the right direction towards certified breeders and support Lucy’s Law which stated that anyone wanting to get a new puppy or kitten in England must now buy direct from a breeder, or consider adopting from a rescue centre instead; they could help put puppy farmers, who put their profit before the welfare of their animals, out of business. She felt Members must also push for the revival of the Kept Animal Bill; they had a duty of care to animals and wildlife in this country, in their homes or legal businesses and that duty care must be enshrined in law.
75.13 The seconder of the Motion felt it was imperative that Members supported the public as they made decisions on where to get their pets and support Lucy’s Law in guiding them to certified breeders. The main animal welfare problems associated with puppy farms included, but were not limited to, lack of safety, space, basic essentials, housing and care which could lead to lasting trauma. Due to lack of testing and the intense breeding these dogs suffered incurable conditions such as heart and kidney disease, joint disorders, respiratory disorders, epilepsy and neurological disorders, all of which had a high risk of being passed onto their puppies. Furthermore, puppy farmers sold the puppies at an early age to third party suppliers without the presence of their mother. This could put mother and her puppies through a lot of stress, meaning many developed social and behavioural problems later in life. Studies also showed that over a third of puppies bought after viewing online, or from a newspaper, were a spur of the moment decision. Soon after, owners had a change of heart and realised they were not suitable and the dog was taken to the rescue centre, or worse. If they could support people in making better decisions and put those farms out of business it would help stop this barbaric business.
75.14 A Member questioned what checks were carried out by the Council in order for a licence to be issued and whether that was evidence they were a reputable breeder. The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that she would obtain a written answer following the meeting. The Member indicated that, having carried out her own investigations, she was concerned that the Council was signposting people to reputable breeders when it was not necessarily best placed to do so. The Kennel Club had an excellent website which listed reputable breeders along with information to help people decide whether it was right for them to have a puppy; whilst it did not cover mixed breeds, that information was available from the RSPCA or Dog’s Trust websites. The Leader of the Council indicated that he had sought assurance from the Director: Communities prior to the meeting and he had confirmed he was happy with the Motion and felt it was a good proposal. The Member raised concern that the conditions of premises inspected by Council Officers once a year could change over time, as could the number of dogs etc. which was why she was concerned the Council could be giving the impression they were reputable breeders when they may not be. Another Member questioned what enforcement measures were available to the Council as she was aware of a puppy farm in her area which had been reported but no action had been taken. The Leader indicated that this Motion would not address that issue in and of itself as national change and resource was needed to enforce. The seconder of the Motion explained that the Motion intended to influence the buyer – if they were aware of the concerns when puppies were being sold, they were more likely to go to a better establishment. A Member indicated that, whilst the Motion was commendable and she was passionate about how animals were looked after, she raised concern that, even if people were being encouraged to go to reputable breeders, some puppy farmers were very good at covering up what was going on behind closed doors so she asked how it could be monitored. The Leader of the Council explained that he did not think it could be monitored as such, and he was not suggesting this Motion would solve all of the issues, but supporting it with its best endeavors was as much the Council could do at this point.
75.15 The Leader of the Council went on to suggest an amendment to the Motion in order for the letter to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to be written by himself, rather than the Chief Executive, and the proposer and seconder of the Motion confirmed they were happy with that. Another Member indicated that she felt it would be more appropriate for the Council to signpost local residents to relevant websites, such as the Kennel Club and the Dog’s Trust which were experts on these matters, rather than publishing a list of breeders and suggested an amendment to the Motion on that basis. The proposer and seconder of the Motion confirmed they were also happy to make that change. A Member raised concern there was a suggestion that the Council’s licensing arrangements were inadequate and he asked if that was the case. In response, the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that it was not the case that the processes in place were inadequate; however, the Council could inspect a premises and issue a licence one day but there was no way of knowing that breeder would remain reputable until it was next inspected, unless a breach was reported.
75.16 A Member was delighted to see this Motion come forward and happy to support it. She noted that part of the Motion was in relation to a dedicated publicity campaign to make sure people knew the signs to look for when buying a puppy to suggest it may have come from a puppy farm. She pointed out that veterinary practices did a lot of good work around this as when puppies and dogs became unwell they were usually taken to the vets who were able to better identify the signs they may be from a puppy farm. She felt it was important to encourage people to do the right thing but agreed that a licence was akin to a Disclosure and Barring Service check in that it was only accurate at a particular point in time. A Member indicated that, although he was supportive of the Motion, as a separate matter he would like to know how many licences had been rescinded by the Council and what follow-up procedures were in place once a licence had been granted. Another Member asked whether breeders could be made to register with the Kennel Club etc. as part of the conditions of their licence and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment advised that it was not possible to force people to register with other bodies but she undertook to seek responses to the queries raised regarding licensing procedures and the number of licences granted and rescinded etc.
75.17 The substantive Motion was proposed and seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That it be AGREED that the Council:
i. signpost local residents who wish to buy a puppy to relevant websites, such as the Kennel Club and Dog’s Trust, in order for them to find reputable breeders;
ii. undertake a dedicated publicity campaign to raise awareness of illegal puppy breeding and signs to look for when buying a puppy that suggest it might come from a puppy farm, and how to report suspicious activity; and
iii. instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling for the Kept Animals Bill to be revived to make it more difficult for puppy farmers to operate.