| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Jun 2009 : Column 299WH—continued
The second general point that I want to put on the record and make pet owners aware of is that, in a minority of cases, people will not be able to bring their
much-loved animals back into the UK, which could cause extreme distress and upset. In the vast majority of cases, there are no problems. However, according to Department figures, in 2007, about 4,800 pets fell foul of the scheme and had various problems. There were some problems with microchips, as happened with my constituent. Another 1,300 cases were listed as “any other reason”. People should be aware that, in recent years, the number of people who are faced with such problems has risen to just below 5,000 a year.
It is significant that pet insurance now covers the cost of quarantine for pet owners who are forced to pay huge sums like the £8,000 that my constituent faced. That should alert us to the issue. I am pleased to put this matter on the public record, so that people are aware of the risk. Although the risk is small, some people may not want to take it if their pets are so important that they could not bear to be parted from them.
The third area of public policy that I want to probe the Minister on is the six-month quarantine that we insist on for animals coming into the country. The helpful briefing on this debate that I received from the British Veterinary Association said that Nigel Gibbens, the chief veterinary officer, Professor Phil Craig of the university of Salford and Dr. Dilys Morgan of the Health Protection Agency have stressed the need for the current UK requirements to continue. Those requirements are exercised under a derogation from the European Union scheme. However, those people who are much more qualified on such issues than I am support the requirements only because of the problem of tapeworms, specifically the E. multilocularis tapeworm. Is that tapeworm the reason why the UK has a six-month quarantine and is not part of the general European pet passport scheme? We stand with only Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Finland in having a derogation that allows us to have tougher enforcement provisions.
The fourth and final general area of policy that this debate can usefully highlight is about United Kingdom dogs. The UK is thankfully rabies-free, and we must take the proper measures to ensure that we stay rabies-free. Dogs that originate from the UK will have had all the correct vaccinations, blood tests and microchips. When British originated dogs return to the UK from abroad, is there not a case for treating them slightly differently from dogs from the rest of the EU, where rabies is still a problem? It is principally a problem in Romania and Latvia, and is thankfully much less of a problem in the rest of mainland Europe. I wonder whether discretion could be exercised in that area, perhaps in relation to my first point on the general discretion that the Secretary of State is allowed.
Those are the four issues that I want to raise. My constituent’s case was tragic. There were two errors, neither of which were her fault. They were innocent errors; they were not made deliberately. The first error was made by a vet after the dog’s original microchip came out. A blood test was done after a new microchip was inserted. I understand that a revaccination should have taken place at that point. The dog was then moved to America and had a subsequent blood test there at a local reputable laboratory. However, I understand that the legislation states that the Department accepts only one laboratory in the whole of the United States of America as being valid as far as re-entry into the United
Kingdom is concerned. That situation caused the second six-month sentence for the dog, which is currently in Sweden. It is quite a well travelled dog; it has been half way around the world. I am informed that, on 29 July, the dog will be warmly reunited with its owner who has been resigned to waiting for the past month.
In essence, that is what happened to my constituent. She has done a lot of research on this general area, and she has pointed me in the direction of a written answer from the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who responded on 26 November 2008 to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). It is wonderful that our constituents have all this information available through the internet, because they can see exactly what we are up to—the questions that we ask and the answers given by Departments. The Minister’s predecessor said:
“Our current controls may no longer be proportionate to the risk of rabies entering the UK.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 1621W.]
The excellent officials who are sitting behind the Minister obviously advised his predecessor on that. I would be interested to hear his comments on the matter. I do not want to push the Department to do one thing or another. I am not scientifically qualified and I am not a vet, but I am aware of the rabies risk in this country, and I am here in an interrogatory mode to try to get answers to some of those questions.
A final related issue is, again, of great significance to disabled constituents, particularly those who have difficulty with their sight or require assistance. I briefed the Minister on that matter this morning. I should like to express my appreciation of the work of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which contacted me to let me know about the difficulties with certain airlines and airports in relation to allowing assistance dogs to travel with their owners who need assistance within the stipulation of the pet passport scheme. I am informed that that issue relates to the European regulation on the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, which was introduced in July 2008.
The regulation requires European airlines to carry guide dogs and other assistance dogs in the cabin of the aircraft with their owner at no extra charge, subject to national rules, such as the UK pet travel scheme. That all sounds well and good. In the United Kingdom, Birmingham, Bristol, Luton, Stansted, Doncaster, Glasgow, London Gatwick, London Heathrow and Manchester airports are all approved. However, that is not quite as good as it sounds, because I further understand that although Luton, Stansted and Bristol airports are approved, none of the airlines that have sought approval for their routes fly into them.
We seem to be stuck in a bit of an impasse, because people who quite properly should be able to travel with their assistance dogs face a two-stage hurdle: they have to get clearance from the airport and the airline. Will the Minister say whether he is making the airports and airlines feel the heat a little on this issue? Are they delaying in some way? Luton airport, which is close to my constituency and serves a large number of my constituents, has done the right thing. What pressure is
the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Transport putting on those airlines that fly in and out of Luton to make sure that they do the right thing? Edinburgh jumps out as being an airport that is not on the list of nine approved airports. Perhaps the Minister can tell me what he is doing to make Edinburgh airport do what the other airports have done.
I shall draw my remarks to a close. Again, I express my gratitude to you, Mr. Caton, and to the former Speaker for allowing me to raise these issues in this land of animal lovers, and I look forward to the Minister responding as helpfully as he can to the various points that I have made.
4.40 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Fitzpatrick): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate, which draws our attention to the important issue of how the UK protects itself against diseases carried by animals, and to the burden that responsible pet ownership can place on people who want to travel with their pets. We need to maintain our protection against rabies and other serious diseases while allowing people to move as freely as possible with their pets.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving my office advance notice of specific issues that he would raise. I hope that I am able to respond to all of them in the course of my remarks. Clearly, if I do not or am not able to, I would be happy to write to him in due course.
Rabies is a truly devastating disease and is almost invariably fatal once a patient exhibits symptoms. Across the world, it kills some 55,000 people a year, largely in India, south-east Asia and Africa. Apart from infrequent cases in quarantine, the UK has been fortunate to be free from rabies for many decades, and the situation in continental Europe has greatly improved in recent years.
The risk of rabies, as well as the possibility of picking up other diseases, means that no owner should take the responsibility of travelling with their pet lightly. It is a serious business, as the hon. Gentleman said, and, although we have serious controls in place to mitigate the risk, a strong burden of responsibility falls on pet owners.
For many years, quarantine was this country’s main defence against rabies. All animals entering the UK had to be isolated for six months in approved quarantine facilities. That ended when we introduced the pet travel scheme in 2000. It was designed to offer protection against disease risks to animals and the public while allowing people flexibility to travel with their pets.
The pet travel scheme introduced a dual system: pets from high-risk countries still spend six months in quarantine, but pets entering from some lower-risk countries including European Union members and the United States, are, in effect, allowed to serve their quarantine period in the country of origin. Such animals now enter with a passport that proves that they have been microchipped and vaccinated, that their blood has been tested to check that the vaccine has taken effect, and that they have waited for six months. The six-month wait is to ensure that the animal had not already been infected with rabies.
There is a further requirement for owners to treat their pets against ticks and tapeworm. The treatment must be applied between 24 and 48 hours before travelling. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about tapeworm. UK tick and tapeworm controls are in place to minimise the risk of certain diseases entering the UK as animals move under the pet travel scheme without spending time in quarantine. Tapeworm controls deal with Echinococcus multilocularis, which causes an extremely unpleasant liver disease in humans. It usually proves fatal if not treated, and even with treatment leads to dangerous chronic illness. Tick treatments aim to deal with a variety of ticks that have the potential to become established in the UK.
The hon. Gentleman realises the significance of tapeworms. He asked about timing of the treatment. It must be given 24 to 48 hours before travelling, not six months. The 24 to 48-hour window ensures that animals excrete any tapeworm eggs before travelling to the UK, and that they have not had a chance to be re-infected in the country of origin.
The hon. Gentleman asked about discretion in the rules. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no power to authorise exemptions from the requirements of the pet travel scheme. The rules are clearly set out in legislation, and, given what I said about the seriousness of rabies, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members would want the Government to maintain a robust approach to the controls.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, out of more than 500,000 pet journeys, there have been an extremely small number of cases in which, outside the pet travel scheme, Ministers have decided to exempt animals from the standard quarantine requirements. That has only happened when the owner was able to demonstrate the most extreme personal circumstances and needed to be reunited with their animal. Even in those cases, certain restrictions on the handling and movement of the animal were rigorously enforced. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give specific details of those cases, but I can assure him and others that Ministers give all such matters the most serious consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the problem of illegal imports. No system is perfect, and there will always be people who try to break the law. The nature of that activity means that it is difficult to specify the number of animals illegally imported. However, we enforce the law, and I can inform him that we detected 196 illegal landings in 2008. We factor illegal activity into our risk assessments. We consider the implications for enforcement of the scheme, and we have strong penalties in place for offenders. The existence of the pet travel scheme itself is an important incentive to comply; previously, all animals had to serve six months in quarantine.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be different rules for British animals. The rules of the pet travel scheme are designed to protect human health, native pets, and animals that travel with their owners. Animals that comply and can demonstrate that they have been effectively vaccinated, whether they are from the UK or not, can travel freely between European member states and listed third countries, such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Only those that cannot fully demonstrate that they meet the rules are required to re-prepare for entry.
On the rights of disabled people, the hon. Gentleman raised a point about individuals taking dogs on to aircraft. I was previously aviation Minister, but no longer. On behalf of the Department for Transport, I signed the protocol to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is relatively new and still working its way through. I am sure that is one of the reasons why there is no comprehensive endorsement from airlines or airports—it is still being developed, and some are still trying to comply. There is a European regulation that sets out people’s rights in that respect. It requires European airlines to carry assistance dogs—including guide dogs—in the passenger cabin of the aircraft with their owner at no extra charge. That is subject to any national rules that may apply, such as the pet travel scheme.
Under the approval scheme for carrying pets—including assistance dogs—into the UK, airlines will enter into a contract with our animal health agency to demonstrate that they have the means and facilities to check those animals on arrival. DEFRA, the animal health agency and the Department for Transport continue to work closely and meet with airlines, including no-frills operators, to advise on that process. Ultimately, however, it is up to the airlines to seek approval.
As things stand, the derogation that enables the United Kingdom to retain our current pet movement controls comes to an end in June next year—although the European Commission last week promised that the derogation could be extended until the end of 2011. As we consider future controls, we are in close discussion with the Commission and other member states about what a European system should be. We have to balance the evidence of risk from rabies, tapeworm and tick-borne diseases, which affect everyone, against the burden on pet owners who wish to travel with their pets.
I accept that it is particularly difficult when the law, which has safeguards written in for sound reasons, throws up unusual and distressing cases. The Government must continue to comply with European and national law as they stand, but as we consider the future of our pet controls, we have an opportunity to think about where more flexibility is possible. I will therefore carefully consider the issue of flexibility in our discussions with the European Commission and other member states on future pet movements.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of his constituent, and has described how our controls may impose a burden on individuals in the name of protecting animals and the wider public. I sympathise and understand how frustrating the situation must be. It is unfortunate that it seems that mistakes, as he has outlined, by private veterinary surgeons meant that on two separate occasions the animal did not comply with the requirements of the UK pet travel scheme.
Let me explain why the pet was refused entry into the UK. The first time, as I understand it, the animal’s microchip failed. If we cannot identify a dog at the border, we cannot be sure that it has been vaccinated against rabies, blood-tested and treated for tick-borne diseases and tapeworm, as I have described. The microchip is the key to the pet travel scheme and it is the most cost-effective and reliable means of identification.
On the second occasion, the blood sample that tested whether the dog’s rabies vaccination had been effective was sent to the wrong laboratory in the United States. Between 2 and 5 per cent. of rabies vaccinations do not
work and a test is required to ensure that the vaccine has taken effect. The law states that the test must be:
“carried out in an approved laboratory”.
That means a laboratory that has been accredited by the European Union. That gives us the assurance that we can trust the work that is done at laboratories and the assurance that that work follows a standardised process.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were 4,800 problems with animals in the last year for which we have figures. That is true, but that is out of 115,000 animals, and the problems mostly arose because of expired vaccinations. So we are talking about less than 5 per cent. of cases. Some might be small matters that do not require a great deal of activity and can be dealt with quite quickly. In the vast majority of cases, the scheme is clearly working very effectively.
Andrew Selous: I am most grateful to the Minister, not least for the spirit in which he is replying to the debate; what he has said has been genuinely helpful. There is just one area that I want to press him on. I want to take him back to the issue of assistance dogs. He said that it was up to the airlines to decide whether to take them. He and I both know that some of the airlines perhaps require some assistance themselves, shall we say, to move along a little faster. Given that he is a past aviation Minister, may I urge him to have a word with some of his former colleagues in the Department for Transport, so that they can have a friendly word in the ear of some of the airlines about the issue? Let me take the example of Luton airport again. The airport is ready, but none of the airlines there are ready. That does not strike me as being quite good enough.
Jim Fitzpatrick:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration and I am sympathetic to the point that he makes. Clearly, the challenge is having to regulate to force people to do things. I know that the Conservatives, like the Government, want to have the lightest-touch
regulation for business, to try to encourage best practice. That approach is always more successful than forcing people to do something. I know that officials in my Department are meeting two of the low-cost airlines fairly soon and I am sure that they will raise the point that he has asked us to raise with them.
It is certainly in the interests of airlines to be able to offer products that attract the majority of people to buy them. If one airline is offering a facility that other airlines are not, it gives them a competitive edge. The protocol that was signed within Europe for assisted transport was to encourage best practice and standards that everybody would aspire to. As the hon. Gentleman has described, and as I mentioned, we have clearly made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time, but we obviously want to ensure that the coverage is as comprehensive as possible. I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am sure that officials from my Department will be able to raise the issue with the airlines. If there is any information that comes from their meeting with the airlines, I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to bring him up to speed.
To conclude, I again congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire on securing this interesting and timely debate. I also assure him that, although the Government’s priority will remain the protection of human and animal health, we will continue to implement proportionate movement restrictions in compliance with European Union law. The pet travel scheme is something that we are very proud of. The numbers of people using the scheme demonstrate that it is very popular. More than 500,000 people in total have now used it. As I have said already, in the last year for which we have figures 115,000 people used the scheme. It is growing all the time. We need to be vigilant, we need to ensure that pet owners are looked after, and we need to be as sympathetic and compassionate in this area as possible.
4.54 pm
| Index | Home Page |