Animal Shelters: Regulation of Euthanasia

I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters.

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of deep concern to animal welfare organisations, rescue centres, veterinary professionals and millions of animal lovers across the United Kingdom: the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters, and the wider challenges facing animal welfare across this country.

Before I begin, I pay tribute to my dear late friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was one of Parliament’s most passionate champions of animal welfare. Throughout his distinguished parliamentary career, he consistently spoke up for animals—God’s creatures—who could not speak for themselves. Whether campaigning for stronger welfare protections, raising welfare concerns in Parliament or supporting charities working on the frontline, his compassion for animals was unwavering, and I am determined that his legacy on animal welfare will live on, hence this debate today.

I would also like to recognise the work of his daughter, Katie Amess, who has continued that commitment with great determination and dignity. Through her engagement with rescue organisations, campaigners and welfare charities, she has ensured that these issues remain firmly in the public consciousness. Those working tirelessly to improve animal welfare across our country are grateful for her continued advocacy.

Sir David understood a simple truth: the way a society treats its animals says much about the values it upholds. It is in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House. The issue before us is not simply one of euthanasia; it is about transparency, accountability, responsible ownership, animal welfare and whether our current systems are equipped to cope with the pressures they now face.

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I spoke to him beforehand, to make him aware of my intervention. He will not be aware—indeed, nobody will be—that my wife has been a volunteer in animal shelters for a great many years, so we have had the cats and dogs that could not be homed living in our home, and they became, as they often do, family members. Does he agree that we must implement strict, legally binding regulations that mandate compassion, force transparency and ensure that destruction is only ever a last medical resort?

The hon. Member is, of course, absolutely correct. The laws in this area are completely inadequate, and as I will go on to say later, this is something that people across the British Isles care deeply about. We are a nation of animal lovers, and there is no greater animal lover than the hon. Member. He speaks very passionately for the people of Northern Ireland, and I thank him for his intervention.

Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, rescue organisations report that they are overwhelmed. Shelters are full, waiting lists are growing and charities are being forced to make impossible decisions as increasing numbers of dogs and other animals are abandoned, surrendered or left as strays. The RSPCA has reported significant increases in abandonment in some areas, and rescue organisations throughout the country consistently warn that they are operating beyond capacity. The consequences of the cost of living crisis, combined with irresponsible breeding practices and impulse pet purchases have created what many in the sector now describe as a genuine animal welfare crisis.

When shelters are full and rescue spaces cannot be found, local authorities and contracted kennels face a difficult decision. Under existing legislation, once a stray dog has completed the statutory holding period and remains unclaimed, authorities may rehome the dog, transfer it to an appropriate establishment or euthanise it. The law therefore clearly provides alternatives to euthanasia, but campaigners, rescue organisations and those working directly with council pounds have serious concerns about how the system operates in practice.

Many local authorities no longer operate their own pounds. Instead, they contract the service to private kennels or commercial providers. Those facilities often have limited space and resources and significant operational pressures. As a result, many do not conduct the full behavioural assessments and adoption processes required for direct public rehoming. The practical reality described by many rescue organisations is that once the seven day statutory holding period expires, the race begins to find a rescue space before a healthy dog loses its life. Volunteer groups known as pound pullers spend countless hours attempting to find rescue placements for dogs facing euthanasia. Rescue organisations report that they are frequently contacted to take dogs from council pounds, but many are already operating at full capacity.

One of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that we do not actually know the true scale of it. There are no centralised systems recording how many healthy or treatable animals are euthanised by local authorities, contracted kennels or veterinary practices. Freedom of information requests often produce inconsistent results, records vary significantly between local authorities, and veterinary practices are not required to report such figures centrally. There is no direct knowledge of what is really happening on the ground.

The absence of data is a serious problem. Good public policy demands that evidence is provided, and depends upon it, yet there is a remarkable lack of transparency in this area. We cannot properly assess the scale of the issue, identify trends or develop effective interventions if the information is not collected. I therefore urge the Government to consider establishing a national reporting framework for healthy and treatable companion animals euthanised in the stray dog and shelter system. Such a measure would not seek to criticise local authorities, rescue organisations or veterinary professionals; rather, it would provide transparency, improve accountability and ensure that future policy decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption.

The Government should also review whether the current seven day holding period remains fit for purpose. Rescue organisations argue that seven days is often insufficient to locate an owner, complete necessary assessments or secure an appropriate rescue placement. Given the unprecedented pressures facing the rescue sector, it is reasonable to ask whether a framework established decades ago remains adequate for today’s circumstances.

Although euthanasia is the issue we are debating today, it is not the root cause of the problem. The real question is why so many animals are entering the system in the first place. Time and again, rescue organisations tell us the same thing: there are simply more dogs than there are homes available for them. The reality demands action.

First, we should examine whether it is appropriate to continue issuing large numbers of new breeding licences when shelters and rescue centres are already struggling to cope with existing demand. Responsible breeders have an important role to play, and this debate is not about penalising those who adhere to high welfare standards. However, when rescue organisations across the country report that they are full and that healthy animals are being put at risk due to lack of capacity, we must ask whether the current rate of licensed breeding is sustainable. The Government should therefore consider temporarily restricting or reducing the issuing of new breeding licences until pressure on shelters and rescue organisations has eased.

Secondly, all animals rehomed through shelters and rescue organisations should, where medically appropriate, be compulsorily spayed or neutered and microchipped before adoption. Many reputable rescue organisations already operate in that way. Introducing a consistent national standard would help reduce unwanted litters, improve traceability and prevent future generations of animals from entering the shelter system unnecessarily.

Thirdly, we should continue strengthening laws on animal cruelty and abandonment. Animals are sentient beings, not disposable commodities. The law must reflect that principle. Stronger enforcement with tougher penalties for serious cruelty offences, and greater support for prosecutions, would help deter neglect and abandonment while reinforcing the responsibilities that accompany pet ownership.

Fourthly, the Government should establish a central national database for stray, abandoned and lost animals that is accessible to local authorities, shelters and authorised welfare organisations. At present, information is fragmented across multiple systems, charities and regions. A unified database would improve communication, reduce duplication, increase opportunities for reunification and significantly improve the efficiency of rescue efforts.

Fifthly, every stray animal should be routinely scanned for a microchip upon entering a veterinary surgery, local authority facility, contracted kennel or rescue organisation. We desperately need a more unified approach here. Surprisingly, there is no single microchip database for those organisations to check. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the 11 databases of the Association of Microchip Database Operators to build a single point of search, but what happens with the 14 databases that are not AMDO members? Furthermore, although some databases are free of charge, some are now charging one off amounts. Others are starting to charge subscription fees, which I am concerned will create a financial barrier to a legally mandated obligation on owners to microchip.

I commend to the Minister the work of Vets Get Scanning, an organisation established by the late Sir Bruce Forsyth and his fabulous daughter Debbie Matthews, who has been campaigning for this for many years to stop pet theft and return animals to their rightful owners. I invited Sir Bruce Forsyth to the Houses of Parliament some years ago to promote this very cause. He met many Members of Parliament at that time, including Sir David Amess, to promote the importance of all veterinary surgeries scanning animals when they are brought in, to check who the real owner of the pet is and to ensure that stolen dogs are returned to their rightful owners.

This recommendation carries a particular significance because of the tragic case of Tuk in 2017, which exposed serious shortcomings in the identification process and highlighted the devasting consequences that can occur when procedures fail. I must also pay tribute at this point to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed this cause.

Routine and repeated microchip scanning would be a simple, practical and cost effective safeguard that could prevent similar incidents in the future while increasing the likelihood of lost pets being reunited with their families. Taken together, these proposals would not require vast new expenditure. They are simple, preventive measures that address the causes of the crisis rather than merely responding to its consequences. By reducing the number of animals entering the system, improving traceability, strengthening accountability and supporting responsible ownership, we can reduce the circumstances in which euthanasia becomes necessary.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by rescue charities, volunteers, local authority officers, kennel staff and veterinary professionals. Those on the frontline of animal welfare frequently face heartbreaking decisions. They do not do so because they lack compassion, but because they are operating within a system and are under immense strain.

This debate is not about assigning blame, but about identifying solutions. Sir David Amess often reminded us that animals cannot speak for themselves. It therefore falls to us as legislators to ensure that their welfare is properly protected. The measures I have outlined today would increase transparency, support rescue organisations, encourage responsible ownership and reduce the number of healthy animals at risk of unnecessary euthanasia. Most importantly, they would tackle the underlying causes of the crisis rather than merely its symptoms. In doing so, we would not only improve the lives of countless animals across the country, but honour the legacy of Sir David Amess, whose lifelong commitment to animal welfare inspired so many, and support the continuing efforts of Katie Amess and others who work tirelessly to ensure that vulnerable animals are given the protection, dignity and compassion that they deserve. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this important debate. He has championed animal welfare for many years in this place. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention.

I pay tribute to Katie Amess, who has campaigned strongly on this issue, as we have already heard, and to her late father, Sir David, who was such a passionate advocate for animal welfare. He is sadly missed in this place. I would also like to pass on my appreciation to the array of animal rights and welfare charities that do so much to support our nation’s well loved animals and pets.

This has been a good debate on an important and sensitive subject, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the work the Government are doing to address many of the issues that have been highlighted. Let me state from the outset that the Government believe that every stray dog deserves care, dignity and proper consideration for its welfare. Our focus is on reducing the number of dogs entering the system in the first place, improving reunification and rehoming outcomes, and ensuring that euthanasia is only ever used as a genuine last resort.

Local authorities play a central role in the system, and we are backing them to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Councils have a legal duty to deal with stray dogs, whether they are lost, stolen or abandoned. Each year, they handle tens of thousands of cases. They collect dogs quickly, check for injury or neglect, and make every effort to identify the owner through microchips and tags. If an owner cannot immediately be found, dogs must be held for at least seven days to give people the chance to come forward. After that point, authorities work to reunite, rehome or transfer dogs to rescue organisations wherever possible. The outcomes data shows that this system does work for the majority of cases: most dogs are either reunited with their owners or passed on to rehoming centres.

But we know that much more needs to be done, particularly as rescue organisations face growing pressures, as the hon. Member for Romford identified. The cost of living and the legacy of the pandemic have led to increased abandonment and stretched capacity. That is why the Government are actively working with the sector, through our animal welfare strategy, to understand the pressures and support high welfare standards, and we are preparing to consult on proportionate steps to strengthen the system further.

We are also taking practical action to improve the rates of reunifying pets with their owners. Microchipping has been mandatory for a decade. Although uptake is high across the general dog population, it remains too low among stray dogs and too many records are out of date. We are working directly with database operators and welfare organisations to drive up compliance, improve data accuracy and give local authorities faster, easier access to the information they need. This is about getting more dogs home quickly and reducing the need for further intervention.

Alongside that, we are updating the Government’s guidance on stray dogs. It will set a much clearer expectation that euthanasia should only ever be considered in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. That principle will be at the heart of the revised guidance that we will develop with councils and animal welfare groups.

We must also tackle the root cause. Too many dogs enter shelters because of preventable issues, including irresponsible ownership, lack of training, and poor breeding practices that result in serious health problems. That is why we are now taking forward the recommendations of the responsible dog ownership taskforce to strengthen enforcement, improve education and support better behaviour and training. At the same time, we are acting on low welfare breeding, with plans to consult on tighter standards, better genetic health monitoring and measures to reduce the harmful practices that leave dogs and owners struggling.

Finally, I want to address the issue of euthanasia directly. It is of course a deeply sensitive matter. There will be cases in which an animal is suffering from severe illness, trauma or behavioural distress and euthanasia may, with clear veterinary advice, be the most humane option, but these decisions are never taken lightly. They will weigh heavily on the professionals involved and must never become routine or default practice. The Government are taking a clear and active approach. We are strengthening guidance, improving systems, supporting the sector and acting to prevent dogs from entering shelters in the first place. Our aim is simple: more dogs reunited, more dogs rehomed, and far fewer dogs reaching the point where euthanasia is even considered.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Romford and for Strangford for raising these issues, which I will certainly take back to the Department and raise with the Minister responsible, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford for the specific points he raised in his speech. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues across the House and with partners outside it to drive forward improvements in animal welfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.