A debate on calls for a public register of animal abusers

There will be a debate on e-petition 759783, titled “Make a public animal abuser register & automatically ban ownership” on Monday 29 June in Westminster Hall at 4:30pm. The debate will be opened by Jacob Collier MP (Labour). Petition debates are general debates and do not end with a vote to implement the petition request. See UK Parliament, How petitions debates work, 2023.

Animal welfare law is largely devolved and the measures discussed below apply only in England, or in England and Wales.

The petition

A petition to Parliament, e-petition 759783, calls on the government to make two specific changes: to create a public register of animal abusers and introduce an automatic lifetime ban on animal ownership following conviction for abuse or neglect. It asks for the register to be searchable by vets, breeders, charities and the public to prevent repeat offending. The petition was published on 12 March 2026 and closes on 12 September 2026. At the time of writing, it has attracted 233,513 signatures.

The government’s response to the petition

The government responded to e-petition 759783 on 19 May 2026. It explicitly stated that the government “has no plans to introduce an animal abuse register, or an automatic lifetime ban for animal abusers because we already have similar provisions in place”.

The government’s response sets out that all prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are stored on the police national computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations, and in some circumstances the police may disclose information to the public at their discretion.

The government also said that a publicly accessible register is disproportionate, and compares its approach to disclosure schemes such as the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme and the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme.

On ownership bans, the government argues that courts already have power to impose disqualification orders, including lifetime bans, and that sentencing should remain a matter for the independent courts on a case-by-case basis rather than become automatic.

Animal welfare legal framework

Offences relating to animal welfare are covered by several pieces of legislation. For an overview see government guidance on animal welfare (updated May 2024).

The Animal Welfare Act 2006

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is the principal law relating to animal welfare in England and Wales, protecting all vertebrate animals, with the precise scope of protection depending on the offence and whether the animal is a “protected animal” for the purposes of the act.

The act creates offences under the heading “prevention of harm”. These include causing unnecessary suffering (section 4), mutilation (section 5), docking dogs’ tails except where permitted (section 6), administering poisons (section 7), and animal fighting (section 8).

Section 9 means that a person responsible for an animal has a duty of care to meet its welfare needs. This includes the need for a suitable environment, suitable diet, normal behaviour, appropriate housing with or apart from other animals, and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

The act also provides powers relating to animals in distress, enforcement powers and post-conviction orders, including deprivation of animal ownership and disqualification.

Penalties

Section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 allows a court to disqualify an offender from owning or keeping animals, taking part in their care, influencing the way they are kept, dealing in animals, and/or transporting them. A disqualification order may cover all animals or only a particular type. The Sentencing Council’s guidance on animal disqualification orders explains that the purpose of the order is to protect the future welfare of animals. It also states that the ban may last for whatever period the court considers appropriate, and that a long-term or lifetime ban may be justified where the offender has little or no understanding of animal welfare.

Only a court can impose disqualification orders. Such orders are discretionary, not automatic. The Sentencing Council’s guidance also states that the court is must give reasons if it decides not to make a disqualification order.

The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum penalty for the more serious “prevention of harm” offences under the 2006 act from six months to five years’ imprisonment, making those offences triable either way, so they may be heard in either the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. The Sentencing Council’s 2023 guidelines on animal cruelty set out how the courts should consider culpability, harm, seriousness, aggravating factors and mitigations in determining any sentence imposed.

The government’s explanatory notes to the 2021 act state that the penalty increase does not apply to section 9 (failure to ensure welfare), breach of a licence condition, or breach of a disqualification order, stating “These offences are generally considered less serious, and rarely receive the existing maximum penalty.”

In a February 2024 PQ response the government said the police national computer holds all relevant information for prosecutions made for animal cruelty offences under the 2006 act, and the “police may be approached by anyone who has concerns about whether someone should be keeping animals.”

Other calls for a register of animal abusers

Calls for some form of animal abuse register are not new.

A February 2026 parliamentary petition, “Create a national database of convicted animal abusers” proposed a database accessible to relevant authorities and regulated organisations rather than a wholly public register. It remains open until 6 August 2026 and has attracted over 10,000 signatures to date. The government responded to this petition on 29 April 2026, stating that it “does not think it would be appropriate to introduce a publicly accessible animal cruelty register.” It said that “In the upsetting and unacceptable instances where these laws are violated or repeatedly violated, we already have these offences recorded.”

A 2021 parliamentary petition, “Create a public register of people banned from keeping animals in the UK”, attracted 33,358 signatures. It called for a national register on a government website listing all individuals who have been convicted of animal cruelty and have been banned from keeping animals. The government responded to this petition in March 2021 to say it did not consider it appropriate to have a publicly accessible database of animal related criminal records. It said that to have such a database would “likely breach the General Data Protection Regulations which protects our personal data from getting into the wrong hands”.

An 2018 parliamentary petition, “Create a register of people banned from keeping animals in the UK” called for licensed breeders and rescue organisations to be allowed to check whether a person had been disqualified from keeping animals under animal welfare legislation. It attracted 35 signatures and did not reach the threshold for a government response.

The Holly’s Law campaign

A separate campaign, now known as Holly’s Law, has been promoted by Annette Bramley following the murder of her daughter, Holly. The campaign argues that animal abuse should be recognised as a potential early warning indicator in domestic abuse cases and has called for a system to record and disclose relevant information about animal cruelty.

A petition set up in support of the idea on the Change.org website explains the campaign further and has attracted over 61,000 signatures to-date. The petition argues that such a register could:

• Enable authorities to identify patterns of violent behaviour at an earlier stage
• Provide vital information to protect potential partners and families
• Support law enforcement and safeguarding agencies in risk assessment
• Raise public awareness of the link between animal abuse and human violence
• By formally recognising animal cruelty as a significant warning sign, Holly’s Law could help prevent future tragedies — protecting both vulnerable people and animals.

The campaign is supported by the charity Domestic Abuse Alliance, which has said that it “supports initiatives like Holly’s Law that address the overlapping harms seen in abusive households”, adding that “protecting animals protects people” and describing the campaign as “a vital, compassionate step toward safer futures for both”.

The campaign has also received support from Naturewatch Foundation, a charity dedicated to ending animal cruelty, which argues that the failure to consistently recognise animal abuse as a risk factor in domestic violence disclosure decisions to current or ex partners requesting this information is a significant gap in the current safeguarding framework. Naturewatch has said that animal abuse is often linked to coercive control and escalating violence, but is not always identified as part of police disclosures.

Rather than a fully public register, Naturewatch supports the creation of an Animal Protection Disclosure Scheme, modelled on Clare’s Law (the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme). Under this approach, individuals or organisations could request information about a person’s history of animal abuse, and the police could disclose relevant information where safeguarding thresholds were met. Decisions would be made on a case-by-case, risk-based basis, rather than through automatic or general public disclosure.