Animal Abusers

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and a privilege to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The creator of the petition, Bea Elton, joins us in the Public Gallery. Bea does not work day to day in the protection of animals; she provides a cleaning service for those in need and who are struggling to keep their homes in order. She documents this on her Instagram channel, cleanwithbeax, which has more than 2.2 million followers—probably about the same number as the Minister has.

Bea was kind enough to meet me online ahead of today’s debate—it is lucky she did not meet me in my office, because there was quite a lot of cleaning to do on my desk. Meeting Bea made clear to me her passion and sense of duty for those less fortunate than herself. While deep cleaning homes, Bea has uncovered the awful situations in which some animals find themselves vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse.

It is important to note the distinction between abuse and neglect. Abuse is distinguished by intent. Some people unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, such as financial difficulty or mental distress. Those people are not the concern of this petition, which is focused on intentional abuse. The abuse we are discussing today is not the professional cruelty of organised criminals running illegal dogfights or breeding operations, which are well known to the police, or abusive commercial practices in farms; it is about the hidden cruelty inflicted in domestic settings up and down the country.

Bea emphasised to me that her focus is on abuse committed in the domestic, rather than the commercial setting. Unfortunately, the most recent statistics from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the main investigative body for offences under the current legislation, confirm that Bea’s experiences reflect the situation across our society. In 2022, 400 pet owners were convicted on evidence gathered by the RSPCA in its investigations. I put on record my thanks to the RSPCA for its tireless work in this space right across our country.

The abuse of animals offends our deepest instincts of fairness and kindness. These animals are utterly blameless, yet uniquely vulnerable. The more animals Bea found in this predicament, the stronger became her conviction that the current system for preventing animal abuse is inadequate. One of Bea’s most pressing concerns is that the system fails to prevent animal abuse from occurring in the first place.

In short, Bea’s petition requests that those convicted of animal abuse be prohibited from owning animals again, and that their conviction be listed on a national register that can be accessed by breeders, charities, vets, local authorities and other appropriate organisations. In response, the Government have rejected the demands on the grounds that the current provisions are sufficient; I will return to those points later in my remarks.

I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue to the House; I am very sympathetic.

Animal abuse comes in many forms, and we should also consider what sanctions owners who are irresponsible with their pets should face. In my constituency, we recently had a horrific case where an XL bully attacked a man and he ended up needing hospital treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that people who cannot responsibly handle their animals are also committing a form of abuse and should be treated accordingly?

I think that is a separate issue, but legislation on XL bullies already exists and it needs to be properly enforced.

Animal abuse convictions are most often made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sexual abuse is covered by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. An individual convicted under the Animal Welfare Act can face up to five years in prison and can be subject to a court issued disqualification order preventing them from owning animals for the rest of their life, although the court decides the specific terms of the order.

The experts I spoke to in preparation for this debate—I thank Claire McParland, Dr David Martin and Mark Randell—agree that the current legislative framework is a significant improvement on the previous legislation, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime. The Government note in their response that all “offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are currently stored on the Police National Computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations”

and with members of the public in specific circumstances. However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive.

Under the current system, the reporting of suspected offences is an inevitable challenge. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventive. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they may assume that the authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begins to investigate a report, it can request information from the police about any previous convictions, but that process can be slow and there is no guarantee that the police will release the information. A dedicated national register would, of course, make that easier.

Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Dr David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that the collaboration between the police and the RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales. Local teams know who to call when they have a query or come across animal abuse in their day to day activities. On the other hand, Mark Randell, a former police officer who has spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, said that identifying animal abuse is not standardised across police forces, and understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across the country. We should consider standardised training so that there is not a postcode lottery.

Despite the difficulties, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year. Although disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, the petition requests that bans be made automatic upon conviction. That might reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy, we evaluate proposals for punishing crimes based not simply on how effectively they prevent recurrence, but on whether the punishment is proportionate, and it is not clear that automatic lifetime bans are proportionate.

An automatic ban has no regard for whether the perpetrator is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, they could be in a coercive or controlling relationship, or could themselves be a victim of abuse, which might drive them to inflict harm on animals. In such cases, it is harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, so an automatic ban may be disproportionate.

Across Cornwall, there are dozens of cases of animal abuse every year and animal abuse is a blight on our duchy, so I welcome the principle of an abuser register. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not just add perpetrators to the register, but ensure that the threat of custodial sentences is strong enough that they know they will be punished for their crimes?

I agree. The threat of prosecution was strengthened by the 2006 Act, which has aided in preventing abuse. When the Government review the animal welfare legislation, they should take that into consideration.

A lifetime ban ignores the possibility that offenders may change their ways. In this country, we believe that those who break the law can be rehabilitated into law abiding society. Imagine a case in which a child or young adult commits abuse against an animal. What if they are locking that animal in a cupboard to protect it from a violent parent? A lifetime ban would mean that they would be unable to have such a pet in their retirement, which feels disproportionate.

When the argument is considered from that perspective, the discretionary nature of disqualification orders appears to be a strength: judges have the freedom to consider the offender’s circumstances, which may have motivated the crime. None the less, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent recurrence. Guidelines could be changed to make them time limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed.

As for the national register, the RSPCA has repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for it to access the history of an alleged offender. How the register works in practice must be considered carefully. Bea wants the register to be accessible to appropriate organisations, but not the general public, which would avoid giving rise to animal abuse vigilantism, the likes of which we have seen spreading on social media in other cases.

Alongside access, there is also the question of what information the register should contain. A public register may be less effective if it is simply a snapshot of past offending. As I noted earlier, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act are only part of the picture, and a register of convictions is not as detailed as the archive of RSPCA intelligence. Information must be comprehensive and up to date if it is to be truly effective for relevant agencies.

A more useful alternative might therefore be a disclosure scheme akin to Clare’s law, which enables police to disclose information about an individual’s history of violence or abuse where there is a credible risk to their partner. That scheme is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons if they do not wish to make a disclosure. The family of Holly Bramley have been campaigning for an animal abuse register and police disclosure scheme since her tragic murder in 2023. Holly’s killer was a prolific abuser and killer of animals and he used the threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence cannot be ignored, and it is key to this debate. We owe it to Holly to take action.

My hon. Friend makes a valid link between the abuse of animals and of human beings. I thank the petitioner, Bea, for bringing this issue to this place, because it shines a spotlight on both forms of abuse. The RSPCA has reported that 71% of domestic violence victims suffer death threats to their pets, too. Does that not prove that we need to be more sophisticated in how we record crimes of animal abuse, so that we capture the wider sense that these people are a threat not just to animals, but to their wives, their partners and everyone else?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was shocked by some of the evidence I heard while preparing for this debate about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. As the Government consider the next steps, that must be key to their thinking. I understand that the RSPCA is in discussions with the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding a version of Clare’s law for animal abuse, and I would welcome an update on those discussions from the Minister.

In just three months, Bea’s petition has received more than 238,000 signatures, illustrating the depth of feeling across our country about abuse against animals. That feeling, together with the expert opinion of organisations such as the RSPCA, indicates that the current provisions against animal abuse are not adequate. An automatic life ban for convicted abusers appears to be a disproportionate response, though questions remain about whether disqualification orders are being used as frequently as they should be. A public register of convictions is similarly unsuitable. However, a version of Clare’s law for animal abuse might strike the right balance, allowing the appropriate agencies up to date access and intelligence when they need it, in order to intervene before abuse is committed. I thank Bea for creating this petition and allowing this necessary debate—my office is a prime candidate if she wants to conduct another spring clean.

I begin by thanking Bea Elton and the near quarter of a million petitioners who have brought this issue to the attention of the House of Commons. We are a nation of animal lovers; it is an essential part of the British psyche. We were the first country in the world to have an animal cruelty charity, which became the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In fact, the RSPCA was created 60 years before a similar charity for children, which perhaps says something about the unique attachment we on these islands have to our animals. In 1822, we became the first state to create laws against animal cruelty, again before some prescient ones with respect to humans. Animal charities receive millions of pounds more every year than charities for children do. All of that tells us that the British love their animals; I certainly do.

I am here on behalf of my constituents to strongly back the petition and all that Bea and her fellow campaigners have achieved so far. It cannot be right that in a country like ours, where we have such a deep sentimental attachment to our animals, we allow people who have been known to abuse animals to take charge of them again. It should be the law of the land that if somebody has been convicted of knowingly abusing an animal, they are never in charge of one again. I strongly support the purpose of the petition.

Similarly, it is right that a register is created that is either in the public domain or, as a bare minimum, available to those who breed and sell animals—the ultimate guardians of animals, who entrust them to others—so that they can make sensible choices and not give animals to those who are known to have abused them. It is surprising that a register like that does not exist in our country already; it should do. If the petition spurs the Government to establish such a register, Bea and the quarter of a million people the length and breadth of the country who signed it will have done a good deed.

We must take better care of our pets and animals. That is obviously good for animals, but it is good for us as well. The tenderness we show animals should be something that we celebrate and take pride in when we visit other parts of the world that do not have the traditions that we have. It is part of, as I think Peter Singer described, the “ever expanding circle of empathy” where, if we treat animals well, it will encourage us to treat humans in a similar fashion.

I will finish by again thanking Bea and all of the petitioners. I encourage the Government to take up the recommendations and to create a mandatory ban and a register that is available for all those who pass animals into the custody of their fellow citizens. That will ensure that we protect animals and increase and improve the world class laws against animal cruelty that we have in this country.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all my constituents and everybody else who signed the e petition. Of course, I also thank Bea, who is in the Public Gallery today, for bringing this issue to light.

This topic matters deeply to people across the country, including in my constituency. People expect those who cause suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal from ever being put at risk again. At home, our dog Foggy is a treasured member of our family, and that is how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us, they trust us and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care.

I recently received a letter about today’s debate from a 13-year old constituent, who is worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could go on to have another animal and cannot understand why someone who has already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, not because it came from a young person—although that certainly made it all the more striking—but because it put the matter so plainly: why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?

As we have heard, important powers are already available to the courts under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. Increasing the maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question: is the current system clear, consistent and practical enough to stop people who have been banned simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal? A conviction may be recorded and a disqualification order may be made, but what happens when someone approaches a rescue centre, a breeder or another organisation to take on an animal? How does that organisation know whether the person standing in front of them has a history of serious cruelty or has been banned by a court from keeping animals? At present, the answer seems far too uncertain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we surely need to close the loophole whereby banned owners can give their pets or farm animals to their wife or husband to own, and still live with them?

Absolutely; there is no place for legal loopholes like that in our country, where we love our animals so much.

The Government have referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. I recognise that there are important safeguards around personal information and data protection that we must be aware of, but a record held somewhere in the system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person acquiring another animal. That is the point behind the petition, and it is a point that we should take very seriously. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including through action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, trail hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the animal protection provided after a cruelty conviction is strong enough in practice.

I believe there is a serious case for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme for those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans. It would not need to be a public database. This should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information; it should be a proportionate safeguarding measure, with clear rules on who can make a check, when they can do so, and what information they can receive. It can be managed, is what I am saying.

Animal rescue and rehoming organisations, veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether an individual is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in that person’s care. We rightly recognise that information sometimes needs to be shared to protect children, vulnerable adults and the wider public. I believe we should be willing to consider a careful and proportionate approach that protects animals from people with a proven record of cruelty or neglect.

The petition calls for automatic life bans following convictions for animal abuse or neglect. I understand why it has attracted such strong support. For the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty, the future protection of animals must be at the heart of the court’s decision. There should be a strong presumption that someone who has shown such serious cruelty should not be entrusted with the care of an animal again. Courts must retain the ability to consider the individual circumstances of the case, but where a serious offender receives only a short ban, or no ban at all, there should be clear reasons for that decision.

This is not simply about punishment; it is about prevention. Animal cruelty can be part of a wider pattern of harm, as we have heard. It can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household, which makes early identification and effective safeguarding even more important, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at what more can be done. Will the Government consider consulting on a national animal welfare safeguarding disclosure scheme, so that responsible organisations can check whether a prospective owner has been convicted of serious cruelty or banned from keeping animals previously? Will the Government consider whether the law should create a stronger expectation of lengthy and, where appropriate, lifetime ownership bans in serious and repeated cases? Will they also publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last, how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?

My 13-year old constituent is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a system that works, before another animal is intentionally harmed. That is a basic test of whether our animal welfare laws are doing what the public expect them to do. For my 13-year old constituent, for Bea, for all those who signed the petition and for every wonderful, beautiful animal we love, we should always try to meet that test.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his opening speech, particularly for talking about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. I also thank the people from my constituency who signed the petition, and the petitioner for creating it.

Animal abuse is a particular type of cruelty for which perpetrators should be made accountable—but far too often, that does not happen. I was encouraged by the Government’s animal welfare strategy, which sets out a clear vision for improving animal welfare standards across the country. This Government are delivering the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a generation, but we have the opportunity to go further. The Government could consider having a register of animal abusers and an automatic ban on ownership for all those convicted of animal abuse, to tackle the increased number of cases and reported cases that we are seeing today. In 2024, the RSPCA reported a heartbreaking increase in cases of animal and pet abuse, with their emergency line taking more than one call every 16 seconds. Therefore, I can only support the petition.

Although courts can disqualify individuals from ownership once they are convicted of animal abuse, there is no central register on which charities, vets or businesses can check if someone is banned from keeping animals before selling or rehoming to them, or even employing them to take care of animals. The Government have said that having a public register would not be appropriate, because it would run the risk of exposing a person on the register to vigilantism. However, a closed register that is only accessible by, for example, vets, breeders and charities could remedy that problem. A closed register, alongside a mandatory ban, would serve as a deterrent to animal abusers, especially repeat offenders.

Statistics show that abuse of pets is on the rise, and I have been made aware of an increase in animal abuse content being shared online, so I can only support the petition. The vast majority of pets are not simply animals to us, but members of our families. We recognise that although animal cruelty is on the rise, it is the exception; many pets across the country can safely rely on their owners for consistent care, safety and kindness. However, all animals deserve the best lives possible, so I ask the Government to build on the foundations that they laid in the animal welfare strategy.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for what I think is the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for, as always, introducing the debate so thoughtfully as a member of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 386 animal lovers in my constituency who added their names to the petition. Colleagues may have been hoping to have an animal welfare debate without hearing from me, but I am afraid that today is not that day.

The petitions that we debate are not often started by social media influencers, but it is because of the determination of Bea Elton—known to her millions of followers, myself included, as Clean with Bea—that we are able to debate this important issue today. I will forgive hon. Members who have not yet watched Bea’s videos if they are on their phones throughout my speech. Bea offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies. Sadly, she often comes across animals that have been neglected and have had to live in awful conditions. I am glad that Bea has used her experience and platform to bring the issue to Parliament. I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, as I know that preventing the needless suffering of animals unites us all, across the political spectrum.

Last autumn, I went on a ride along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looked like for her. My constituency is full of pet owners, and who can blame them—why would anyone who lives somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase not get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together? However, I admit that I do not have a pet, not because I do not love animals, but because I could not give one the time and attention that it deserves—I often joke that I have two young kids and that is enough for now.

This debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right; it is a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie reinforced that. Like many people, I assumed that most of an RSPCA inspector’s work involved rescuing animals from awful situations—and of course, they do that, in tandem with the police—but what surprised me was how much of their time is spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spend hours following up with owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example, and they work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores inspectors’ advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate.

One thing that has stayed with me from that day is that many cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of relationship breakdown, domestic abuse, as we have heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it reminds us that animal welfare is often connected to the wider challenges in somebody’s life.

We also know, as we have heard, that the relationship can work the other way. The Ruby’s law campaign highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control, knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. Nine in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals is not separate from protecting people; sometimes it is part of the very same task. That is why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals, so it relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors cannot force entry into a property if access is refused.

The experience left me with one clear thought: our system does a reasonable job of responding once abuse has happened, but I am not convinced that it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As hon. Members have highlighted, the Government’s response to the petition states that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals. That is absolutely true, but rescue centres, breeders and pet shops cannot routinely check those records, so somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming the animal have no way of checking whether that person has been disqualified. That does not mean the law has comprehensively failed; it means there is a gap in the system.

Breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first. Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we should not be relying on chance or left hoping that somebody will spot what has happened when another animal is already suffering. Surely it is better to stop the animal being placed there in the first place.

I understand the Government’s concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as hon. Members have already outlined. If a register was available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers, it would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over. It would not be to name and shame, or to publish personal information, but to answer one simple question: can this person legally keep and care for an animal?

My hon. Friend is making such a powerful speech that I did not want to interrupt, but I spoke to volunteers at the East Ardsley RSPCA in my constituency the other week. They told me that they have to endure abuse from people who accuse them of not taking care of animals, because people have reported cruelty to them, but the volunteers do not necessarily have the powers to act. If the RSPCA and other organisations had access to a database, that would solve that problem. Will my hon. Friend also take the opportunity to commend the RSPCA in my constituency for all of its outstanding work?

I will never miss an opportunity to thank the RSPCA, including in Leeds South West and Morley and the East Ardsley centre. My hon. Friend is right that RSPCA staff and volunteers often face abuse themselves because many people are rightly passionate about protecting animals, but it is important to remember that their powers are far more limited than perhaps many of us realise. They are as determined as anybody to do the right thing by animals, so we need to make sure that they are given as many powers as are appropriate and that we support them in doing their important work. The enemy are the people who commit the abuse, not the people who try to help.

The Government are right that judges should retain discretion over the terms of disqualification orders. Every case is different, and rehabilitation should always remain possible where appropriate, but once someone has been convicted of egregious animal abuse, a ban should be automatic and should have a practical effect. The petition is not asking us to reinvent the wheel. The convictions already exist and the courts already have the powers. All we are asking is to close one obvious gap in the system so that trusted organisations have the information they need to stop known offenders acquiring another vulnerable animal. I say to the Minister that if that change could prevent even a handful of animals suffering, it would be a step well worth taking.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this hugely important debate; the petitioners and Bea Elton for getting so many signatures, which is why we are discussing this issue; and Holly’s family, who are turning an absolute tragedy into something that could have a positive legacy. That is very courageous.

In my many years of working in veterinary practice, one observation always stuck with me: how people treat animals is often a reflection of how they treat the people closest to them. People who treat animals with unfailing kindness tend to be some of the kindest people you will ever meet. If people deliberately inflict suffering on a defenceless animal, it is often a warning sign that that violence will extend beyond the animal and into the home. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic animal champion; he has done fantastic work on puppy smuggling. Does he agree not only that there should be stronger sentencing powers, but that those with a proven track record of serious animal abuse and harm should face complete ownership bans?

I totally agree. We should be clear that, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a very big difference between someone who causes suffering to an animal for a variety of reasons, such as mental health issues or ignorance, or through neglect, and someone who deliberately causes harm to an animal because they have a sadistic personality or want to feel powerful. In this debate, it is important to consider the motivation behind causing the suffering: if someone causes deliberate suffering, it indicates that they may well cause harm to other people around them.

As a vet, it is always unsettling to treat a dog with a broken rib that could have resulted from a kick when the owner says that it fell down the stairs, for example. That is a very unusual thing for a dog to do, and it would be very unusual to break a rib as a result. My concern in those situations, beyond treating the animal in front of me, extends to the people living in closest proximity to the person who has brought in the dog. We know that people sometimes even coerce their partner to stay with them instead of leaving by threatening to harm their pet. On that note, I pay tribute to organisations such as Trinity in Winchester, which has a refuge for people fleeing domestic abuse that allows them to take their pets with them, because that is a barrier to people escaping that situation. Cats Protection and Dogs Trust have very similar schemes, and they are hugely important.

As vets, we are trained to recognise the early signs of diseases so that we can treat them before they become irreversible, and I believe we should take the same approach to violence. Animal abuse is not always an isolated act of cruelty; sometimes it is the first symptom of something much more dangerous. That is why I take every opportunity to discuss the important work of the Links Group, which highlights the evidence linking animal abuse with domestic abuse and other forms of violence.

I ask the Minister to consider three measures. First, when someone has been convicted of abusing an animal, that information should be disclosed under the domestic violence disclosure scheme, commonly known as Clare’s law, where it is relevant to protecting someone at risk. If animal abuse predicts domestic violence, that information must be available to all those who need it. The issue at the moment is that the abuse of an animal is often prosecuted under animal welfare laws and does not show up when people look for historical allegations of or convictions for domestic violence.

Secondly, anyone convicted of sexually abusing an animal should be automatically placed on the sex offenders register. At present, such convictions under animal welfare legislation carry no referral to public protection mechanisms. That means that if someone has sexually abused an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws and there is no way of tracking them, although they have a higher likelihood of committing sexual violence against other people as well. That cannot be right; it is an anomaly that this House should fix. Thirdly, anyone convicted of deliberately abusing an animal should be prohibited from owning animals in the future. The courts should have the powers to impose long term or, where appropriate, lifetime disqualification orders.

Holly’s killer had abused animals since the age of eight. He had admitted it and the RSPCA knew about it, but the legal and justice systems that are in place did not allow anyone to join those dots. We cannot allow that to happen again. By clamping down hard on deliberate animal abuse, we can protect women, spouses, children and animals from future harm.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This is an important debate, and I thank Bea for highlighting the issue through the petition.

We have had many contributions. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) clearly set out the background to the petition and the challenges in identifying and enforcing convictions for animal abuse. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) highlighted the importance of and the care that we all feel for our pets and animals. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) discussed the need to think about prevention alongside punishment.

We are all united in our shared belief that any case of animal cruelty is completely unacceptable. As an animal lover, I am deeply committed to doing what I can in this House to raise awareness, to legislate and to support efforts to prevent animal cruelty. I am therefore proud to be part of a Conservative party that has a strong record on animal welfare from our time in government. We passed legislation including the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which bans the export of live animals for slaughter, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. The last Government also introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022.

I will mention one more piece of legislation, passed since the July 2024 election and introduced by a Conservative MP—me. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 shows our ongoing commitment to animal welfare. I was pleased to introduce that legislation to update the laws surrounding livestock worrying, by increasing the fine where dogs attack livestock and giving the police more powers to investigate instances of livestock worrying. I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House who supported the passage of that Act.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who introduced the debate, that I was not here at the outset; I have already apologised to you, Dr Murrison. I rise simply to highlight the association between animal cruelty and domestic abuse, which was highlighted earlier. Annette Bramley is my constituent. Her daughter Holly was killed by a wicked husband who is now enduring life in prison, although of course in a better age he would have been executed.

The connection between animal cruelty and domestic abuse is proven; I have the facts and figures, and I am happy to give them to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and to the Minister, but I will not bore the Chamber with them now. They illustrate that a huge proportion of those who are cruel to people have also been cruel to animals: there is an association that would allow us to deal with risk more effectively.

I have been working with the Government on this issue and I commend them for that work, but I wonder if the Minister can address it in his speech. It is important that we know where the Government are on that work, whether it can be done within existing legislation, or whether it will require further secondary or primary legislation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently, as he always does. I will come on to the case of his constituent and pay tribute to the work that she is doing in due course.

Because of the widespread commitment to, and support for, reducing animal cruelty, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and it is right for us to cement our status as a global leader by continuing to raise the bar. It does not surprise me that the petition we are debating today has received over 230,000 signatures, because I know this is an issue that many of our constituents rightly feel strongly about. In my constituency, 328 people have added their names to it.

Existing provisions ensure that all prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are stored on the police national computer. That information can be shared with appropriate organisations at the police’s discretion. However, there are some points that I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on. What assessment has he made of the arrangement under the 2006 Act? For example, is there consistency in decisions as to when data is shared? How regularly is data being shared? Where is it being shared? Importantly, is it helping to prevent incidents of abuse?

I want to turn to the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, because, sadly, there is a link, and perpetrators of animal abuse too often also abuse people. That has been highlighted by cases such as the tragic murder of Holly Bramley, as we have heard, which has not only boosted awareness, but increased demand for a public register. I commend her mother Annette for turning an unimaginably difficult situation into a campaign that honours her daughter’s legacy and focuses on ensuring that the link between animal and domestic violence is properly recorded.

The RSPA highlighted that 2.3 million adults experienced domestic abuse in 2024, and 71% of victims reported a threat to their pets. Figures such as that should give us serious cause for concern. What steps is the Minister taking to work with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure a cohesive approach to tackling the link between animal and domestic abuse?

I want to recognise the important work being done by the veterinary profession to highlight that link—I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is married to a veterinary surgeon and as an owner of a veterinary business. The work of the Links Group, which is chaired by Dr Paula Boyden, former veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, is helping to inform vets on the frontline who may be exposed to cases that need action. I hope the Minister will join me in acknowledging the importance of that work and outline whether the Government are engaging with the veterinary profession, including the Links Group, the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders, to support that work.

Pets are too often used as a means of coercion and control against those experiencing domestic abuse. That is why it is so important that anyone suffering at the hands of an abuser knows that support is available. Earlier this month, I attended the Cats Protection drop in in Parliament where, among other things, it highlighted the work of charities that provide temporary foster care for pets when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. That support can make the difference between someone remaining in an abusive relationship for fear of leaving a beloved pet behind and having the confidence to escape to safety. Does the Minister agree that those are exactly the kinds of initiatives we should be championing to raise awareness of this issue? Will he outline what steps the Government are taking to improve public awareness of the links between animal abuse and domestic abuse, including the use of threats or harm to pets as a form of coercive and controlling behaviour?

I am sure that all Members will encourage anyone who is experiencing domestic abuse or worried about animal abuse to come forward and seek help. Police forces, including Cheshire constabulary in my area, have safe ways for people to report abuse, and I want anyone listening to this debate to know that you do not have to face it alone; help is available and I urge you to reach out. If we raise awareness of the link between animal and domestic abuse, and improve the sharing and recording of information, I believe that we can identify abuse earlier, protect more victims and prevent further harm. Ultimately, that is what every one of us in this House wants to achieve.

Although the Government have said in their written response to the petition that they will not introduce a public register, given the number of U turns that have been made thus far, I am not certain whether that position can be relied on. However, what is certain is that anyone who is abusing animals or using the threat of animal abuse for manipulation must be prosecuted and face the consequences of their despicable actions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and thank him for the thoughtful way he set out the issues raised in the petition. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions on establishing a public register for animal abusers and the automatic ownership ban.

The petition has attracted significant public support, with more than 235,000 signatures, clearly demonstrating how strongly people across the country feel about protecting animals. I commend the tireless campaigning of Bea and her supporters. As a dog lover—and the owner of 11-year old labradoodle Albert Attlee, who brings real joy to my family and me—I share the petitioners’ deep concern about animal cruelty. People want to see animals treated with care and respect.

We are a nation of animal lovers, and I represent a party with a proud track record of delivering meaningful protections for animals. From introducing the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to strengthening safeguards for domestic animals through the Animal Welfare Act, Labour has consistently led the way in placing animal welfare at the heart of the Government agenda, because we believe that how we treat animals reflects the kind of society we are.

However, we must also confront the harsh reality that animal abuse still occurs often and in deeply distressing ways that shock the conscience and undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Cases of neglect, cruelty and deliberate harm continue to surface, reminding us that the protections we have in place, while important, are not always enough to prevent suffering or deter repeat offending. That reality drives the strength of feeling behind this petition. Where abuse occurs, we want animals to be protected, offenders to be held accountable and to make sure that further harm is not caused. The challenge is not whether to act, but how best to achieve lasting protection for animals.

I will first address the proposal for automatic lifetime bans on animal ownership. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, courts can impose disqualification orders preventing individuals from owning, keeping or caring for animals. In the most serious cases, these bans can be imposed for life. It is for the courts to determine the appropriate sanction based on the specific facts of each case. Judicial discretion is not a weakness in the legislation; it is a strength. It enables courts to impose the strongest possible restrictions where they are needed, while ensuring fairness and proportionality. Introducing an automatic lifetime ban in all cases would remove that discretion.

I now turn to the proposal for a public register of animal abusers. I understand why there is public support for the idea, and the reassurance it is intended to provide, but there are already systems in place to record and share this information when it is right to do so. Convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are recorded on the police national computer, and enforcement bodies such as the police and local authorities have access to that information.

There are also established disclosure mechanisms that allow the police to share relevant information with those who need it. That means relevant information can be used where it is needed for licensing, safeguarding or public protection. A publicly accessible register, however, could create serious risks, including the potential for harassment and misuse of personal data. The more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the right time.

I also recognise the concerns raised by campaigns such as Holly’s law and Ruby’s law, which Members have raised today. They speak to a serious issue: the link between animal abuse, domestic abuse and coercive control. The Government take that link very seriously. Statutory guidance under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises that pets can be used to control, coerce, threaten or distress a victim. DEFRA is supporting wider, cross Government work in this area, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I assure Members that I will continue that cross Government work.

Our focus is on better awareness, appropriate information sharing, pet fostering, veterinary awareness and stronger microchipping safeguards. That is why the right information must reach the right people at the right time through lawful and targeted safeguarding routes.

I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence, given that I was not here at the beginning. He is right that the sharing of information is critical among all the agencies that deal with domestic abuse and animal cruelty, but the Government may need to weave this into their bigger piece of work, which he will be aware of, on risk—dealing with risk in a rather different way, reinforcing some of the existing guidance and possibly even statute. We spoke about Holly’s law, which does not necessarily need to be primary legislation, but does need to have statutory force. Statutory guidance may be the answer in this respect. I do not prejudge that; I simply put it on the record for the Minister to discuss with his compatriots in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

The right hon. Member is a tireless champion on these issues, having met the former Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office and written to Baroness Hayman following his business question last year. I assure him that officials are continuing to work across Government on the points that came out of his meeting with the Minister, and I will certainly take away the points that he just raised.

I totally understand the need for safeguards so that disclosures are not used as an excuse for harassment or inappropriate release of data. Sexually abusing an animal does not mean that someone is on the sex offenders register, and the committing of deliberate acts of violence against an animal would not automatically be included in domestic violence disclosure; but, given the way that information is recorded and stored currently, even if the police wanted to and thought it appropriate, it is unlikely that they would be able to disclose it. Would the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure that these offences are at least recorded in a way that means that they could be disclosed if deemed necessary and appropriate?

I thank the hon. Member for the insight that he, as a vet, brings to the debate. I am very happy to take his suggestions and views back to the Department. He will know that animal welfare is not within my portfolio—it is the responsibility of Baroness Hayman—but I will take back his suggestions and concerns and explore that further.

rose—

I will make some progress, but I am happy to take away the action and share it with my ministerial colleague.

We heard at the start of the debate that, more broadly, the Government are committed to strengthening animal welfare protections and raising standards across the system. That is why, last December, we published our ambitious animal welfare strategy for England. This strategy is not a short term list of individual measures but a long term plan to improve welfare, prevent poor welfare earlier and support a more joined up approach. It includes practical action to promote sensible, responsible pet ownership, tackle puppy smuggling, end low welfare puppy farming and explore further protections.

That matters, because many welfare problems begin long before prosecution is brought. They can start with poor breeding, poor socialisation, lack of knowledge or owners unable to meet an animal’s needs. By addressing those causes earlier, we can reduce the risk of animal suffering and reduce pressure on enforcement bodies later on.

Of course, enforcement remains vital where poor welfare or cruelty does occur. Local authorities, the police and animal welfare organisations all play an important part in protecting animals and holding offenders to account. As we have heard, the RSPCA alone secured more than 1,000 prosecutions in 2024, which shows the scale of that continuing work. That is why the Government’s approach is both practical and preventive. We want to stop animals suffering wherever we can, not only respond once harm has already happened. That means helping owners to understand their duties, providing early advice and ensuring people know where to turn before welfare problems escalate. It also means improving traceability through stronger microchipping and better records so that lost animals can be reunited with their owners, and that irresponsible breeders or owners cannot avoid accountability. Taken together, those measures provide a clear direction, prevent cruelty earlier, target enforcement where risk is greatest, and protect animals through proportionate, workable and lawful safeguards.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions and for speaking so passionately on behalf of their constituents and those who signed the petition. I commend the work of the RSPCA and all organisations that support animal welfare across our country. The Government are clear about our commitment to protecting animals from cruelty, neglect and exploitation, and to ensuring that those responsible are held properly to account. Courts have the power to impose lifetime bans where appropriate, and it is right that they retain the discretion to do so.

Although we recognise the good intention behind the calls for a public register, the risks outweigh the benefits. Targeted disclosure remains the most effective approach. We are continuing to strengthen enforcement by supporting local authorities on how to utilise the tools available to them more effectively. We will continue to deliver our animal welfare strategy, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across our country. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues and stakeholders to ensure the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It is great that there has been cross party support. I hope Bea is happy about that, because that does not always happen in this place, but I think that is because we are a nation of animal lovers, as the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked whether the current systems are enough to stop a convicted animal abuser from simply buying another animal, and I think the answer is no. The Minister says that the Government want a disclosure scheme, but we need to consider how that would work in practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about partners being able to buy pets. The Government should look at that loophole, but the Minister did not mention it in his speech.

I am always keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury)—particularly when he makes insightful points and people think it is me making them. What he said about trusted organisations having access to some kind of register was very important.

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) has done as a vet. He spoke with great authority about people’s motivation for this crime. He talked about deliberate suffering and the warning signs of domestic abuse. As the Minister investigates this area more closely, I encourage him to work across Government with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

I hope Bea has enjoyed the debate. I thank her very much for starting the petition and I thank the quarter of a million people who signed it. Hopefully, we have some good action to take forward.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans.

Sitting suspended.