Recent high profile cases of neglected animals in pet shops have raised questions about how local authorities are interpreting and enforcing existing legislation. Nick Warburton reports

In recent years the RSPCA has seen a noticeable rise in the number of "exotic" pets sold over the counter at local pet shops (ie non-native species like tropical reptiles and birds). It's a pattern that has been matched by a worrying trend of abandoned and mistreated animals. Each year, the RSPCA highlights the problems caused by the increase in exotic pet ownership. The pet trade press has estimated that two or three households per thousand keep an exotic pet, which equates to about 680,000 British households. The RSPCA believes that, in many cases, new owners are not aware of the responsibility they are taking on and the novelty value soon wears off once they realise the full extent of the cost and effort involved. The reason for this rise in exotic pet numbers is debatable, but could be due to media images of such pets in the home and changes in fashion and lifestyles (for example asthma sufferers, who are allergic to animal fur, may decide that an iguana is a more appropriate pet than a cat).

A recent study carried out by the RSPCA revealed that between October 1998 and October 1999, there was a noticeable rise in convictions against pet shop owners who had neglected animals in their care. Statistics showed that neglect and cruelty to animals in shops had doubled. This pattern is not limited to pet shops; the RSPCA has also noted an increasing number of abandoned animals by owners. In the past year, the RSPCA has dealt with over 3,700 exotic pets which were either abandoned or needed rehoming. The question, is what can be done to reverse the trend?

There is a widely held belief in the animal welfare industry and local authorities that shortcomings in current legislation lie at the root of the problem. The Pet Animals Act 1951, which was amended in 1983, stipulates that local authorities are responsible for issuing licences to pet shop owners. This law requires that local authorities only issue a licence if they are satisfied that animals are kept in suitable accommodation. The authority may attach strict conditions to the licence, may inspect the licensed premises at any reasonable time and may refuse a licence if the premises are not satisfactory or the terms of the licence are not complied with. The onus therefore lies with local authorities to enforce and regulate the system. However, the existence of a wide variation in pet shop standards is interpreted as a failure by local authorities to enforce consistently under an old law which seriously needs reviewing.

A national seminar attended by 80 delegates and organised by Ipswich Borough Council last September, highlighted the importance of improving national pet shop standards. One of the main issues raised was the need for greater consistency in current application and enforcement licence conditions, and a better working relationship between the various agencies involved in animal welfare. Keith Davenport, chief executive of pet trade group the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA) emphasised the discrepancies between local authorities: "Pet shop licences vary in cost nationally from nil to over £300 and the number of inspection visits per premises can range from none to four in any one year." Furthermore, the competency of officers carrying out inspections varies considerably and it is not unusual for local authorities to send their most inexperienced members of staff.

Greg Glendell, director of the animal welfare organisation Birds First, agrees: "Very few people who are charged with the responsibility of checking on pet shops have the necessary skills to identify accurately, suffering in most exotic species." The problem is that the number of specialist vets, who do have this knowledge, falls a long way short of the number of local authorities. More importantly, the costs of their services stretch beyond the budgets of most local authorities.

The RSPCA has been one of the most vocal supporters in raising standards and would like to see local authorities play a more active role in tightening up pet shop trade controls. It argues that EHOs should insist that pet shops provide owners with written information about the animals at the point of purchase. Nick Grierson, chief executive of Pet Care Trust agrees, but points out that "you can provide information to potential owners, but you cannot ensure they will follow your advice." He argues that the public needs to think extremely carefully before purchasing any pet. The Pet Care Trust, which represents 25 per cent of pet shop trade, provides pet shops with care sheets on the 27 most commonly sold species (excluding those that fall under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act).

In addition, the RSPCA believes that all applicants for new pet shop licences should be asked to provide details of existing prosecutions for cruelty or neglect to animals and whether they have ever had a licence refused. It would also like to see local authorities tighten up controls through the following measures:

• introduce annual veterinary inspections; vets would be more aware of the health issues and could highlight cases of neglect to EHOs during inspections;
• actively discourage the sale of exotic pets to unaccompanied under-16s;
• make it a condition that pet shop staff are properly trained, possibly by introducing an NVQ or BTEC qualification;
• halt the granting of one-day pet shop licences for fairs that sell exotic pets; and
• devise specific licences for each individual shop listing the species and numbers which may be held in stock.

CIEH advisor on animal welfare issues, Lou Leather, agrees that legislative changes need to be made in the long term, but urges local authorities to act now and "operate existing measures in a more satisfactory way". He points out, for instance, that "there is nothing to stop local authorities placing figures of animals kept in pet shops now. It is good practice to state this figure on every licence prior to issue." However, examples like the recent case in Leeds, where The Living World pet shop was prosecuted several times over a three-year period, before the council had to turn to the High Court to cease the owners from selling animals, highlight how loopholes in the law are undermining animal welfare (EHN 15, 17 March 2001, page 1). "The Pet Animal Act 1951 is fairly old legislation and the way it is framed means that the refusal of a licence does not mean the business has to stop trading", said Richard Wixey, Leeds Metropolitan District Council's chief EHO.

Mr Wixey's colleagues at Leeds MDC, Gwyn Williams and Pat England, have recently compiled "Five Points For Change", highlighting the lessons they learned during the prosecution of The Living World. They have approached MPs, the Home Office and the Local Government Association with the following proposals:

Local authorities need to be given power of entry in cases where pet shops have been refused a licence. Legally, unlicensed pet shops cannot sell animals to the public, however, the law stipulates that EHOs cannot enter these establishments to check whether animals are being sold or not. Keith Davenport from OATA says that pet traders who work within the law would welcome a solution to this problem.

- A shorter appeal period is required. Under present legislation, an applicant is allowed up to six months after the refusal of a licence within which to appeal. If the applicant exercises all the avenues of appeal open to them, the trading of pets can continue for up to two years after the initial refusal to renew a licence.

- The law needs to be tightened as, currently, where a pet shop licence is held, that business is exempt from controls under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. When the 1951 Act was passed, pet shops generally sold domestic animals, but since then, the variety of pets on sale has grown.

- The type and number of animals should be agreed by the local authority beforehand and stipulated in a licence.

- The power to seize animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 should be transferred from the police to local authorities. At present, local authorities can only seize animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. This makes sense because the police often have more serious matters to contend with than rescuing animals. Furthermore, any animals that are seized are passed on to local authorities, which have to incur the costs.

The Home Office's initial response has been promising. Commenting on the suggestions, it has stated that it will consider looking at any Private Members Bill put forward. It has also recommended that local authorities take up the issue with the Local Government Association. Alan Craft of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Lead Authority for Pets and Home, agrees that this is the way forward but insists that a completely new set of regulations is needed, rather than the Government tinkering with an outdated law. He believes that goal-setting legislation is needed to ensure continuing improvement, coupled with national standards underpinned by clear guidance agreed by all the stakeholders including local authorities, pet trade associations and welfare organisations.

Britain may, in theory, be a nation of animal lovers, but as Mr Craft concedes: "With so little parliamentary time available, and with local authorities hard pressed to push for legislative changes in other areas, people are unlikely to influence policy by writing to their local MP. The Local Government Association is the best mouthpiece for lobbying for change."

What about the role of the CIEH in all this? As Lou Leather argues, the Institute is ideally placed to raise awareness of the issue. "The Chartered Institute should ensure that we take a more uniform stance through centralised information gathering, because at the moment local authorities are acting independently to everyone's joint disadvantage. We need to ensure that improvement is continuous by highlighting shortcomings, involving the public, listening to the reputable part of the trade, and seeing the right things are done to fight against those who are loathe to comply with the law for the sake of their own profit."