QUARANTINE FOR PETS

Looking Again at UK Rabies Control Policy

House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee

 4.1

In 1994 the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee published a report on import controls for live animals. On rabies (not the sole subject of the enquiry) it recommended that for those people importing their pet dogs and cats from certain approved countries (EU Member States and all other countries internationally recognised to be rabies-free and carrying out appropriate policies to maintain their rabies-free status) the six month quarantine requirement should be replaced by the following conditions for entry.

Dogs and cats should be microchipped or tattooed with a unique identification number;

Dogs and cats should have spent at least six months continuously in an approved country before import into the UK;

Dogs and cats should be vaccinated with an approved inactivated vaccine at three months of age or older;

Four months after vaccination a blood test should have been carried out in an approved laboratory to determine a satisfactory level of immunity;

Animals should be imported within twelve months of vaccination;

An import licence would be required prior to import into the UK;

Each animal would be accompanied by a passport' setting out its vaccination status; 

Checks would be made at point of entry and (on a sample basis) at destination inland

Six months' quarantine would continue to be required for all does and cats from non-approved countries and for those from approved countries which failed to meet the requirements above.

4.2

The Government of the day pointed out that the EU (Balai) arrangements applicable to traded pet animals and Sweden's new arrangements in place of quarantine were at that time still largely untried. Nonetheless, it agreed that the new EU arrangements for traded pet animals and Sweden's new arrangements should be closely watched.

4.3

In the UK many believe that quarantine offers the only guarantee that this country can be kept rabies-free. However, some sectors of the public are deterred from taking their pets with them when they travel either for work or pleasure because they find the quarantine rules limiting, costly and distressing. Their views are shared by residents of other countries who would like to travel to the UK with their pets.

4.4

The previous Government's agreement in 1994 to keep alternative rabies control systems under review has provided a focus for these concerns. A number of groups have suggested that it would be possible to exempt animals arriving from certain countries from quarantine, using a system largely along the lines of that proposed by the Agriculture Select Committee (paragraph 4.1 above). Such groups, which include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Vets in Support of Change, Passports for Pets and the Quarantine Action Fighting Fund, have expressed the view that such a system would not involve any increase in risk that rabies might be imported, compared with the present controls.

4.5

The British Veterinary Association has said it is not part of its brief to construct a case for changes to quarantine; that is a matter for Government. However, it believes that if and when there is a change, there must be no short cuts on enforcement.

4.6

The Government believes that a large majority of the British public shares its view that changes to the quarantine rules should be made only if that could be done without increasing the risk of rabies being imported.

4.7

The Government also believes that no change could be made without a thorough scientific assessment of the effect of change. This assessment will cover not only the protection given by safeguards correctly applied, but also how easily the rules could be breached by people determined to put pets before threats to public health. It is only through such an assessment that the Government will be able to decide if any of the alternatives to quarantine meets the test that they will not increase the risk of rabies being imported.

4.8

This assessment must be entirely independent, and seen to be independent. Thus the Government will be commissioning this work from scientists outside Government.

4.9

In addition, the Government will be asking those assessing the alternatives to look at their economic effects, compared to those of the current quarantine system. But it will not be enough for an alternative to cost less than quarantine: it will have to deliver protection against rabies which is at least as good or better. And the possibility that relaxation of quarantine will lead indirectly to the introduction of other animal diseases which can be transmitted to humans and which are not currently present in the UK will need to be taken into account.

4.10

In an internal review, the Government has identified six main options:

A

Make no change the base case against which other options must be measured;

B

Reduce the length of time that animals are required to spend in quarantine. It would increase the present risk to reduce the period of detention routinely below six months. But it might be possible to introduce a system involving detention in quarantine kennels for a shorter period, with the balance of six months being served under restraint at home. However, the practicability of enforcing such an option, at the owner's expense, would need to be carefully assessed;

C

Allow in animals for which reliable alternative assurances can be obtained, based on identification, vaccination, blood testing, certification and a system of checks after entry. At a minimum, such animals would have to have been resident in an EU or FEA Member State, or possibly other listed rabies free country which does not vaccinate for at least six months (except where they had previously been resident in the UK and had accompanied their owners on a short term visit to one of these countries). In addition, they would need to be identified by a microchip; have been vaccinated appropriately; have been blood sampled at the appropriate time to demonstrate they were protected; and be accompanied by veterinary certification. Any animals which could not meet these requirements (e.g. because they were not }imported from an appropriate country, were too young to have been satisfactorily vaccinated, or had not been satisfactorily protected by the vaccine) would continue to be subject to quarantine. Relevant personnel would undertake the necessary checks on those animals which were to be exempted from quarantine at the UK frontier. Such checks might include, in certain cases, a confirmatory blood test. It would be crucial for such an option to be able to be properly enforced, otherwise public and pet health would be put at risk;

D

This option would be as option (c), except that checks on imported animals would be carried out at approved reception centres away from ports or airports. The animal would be taken to an approved reception centre by an approved carrier, and not by the owner. Thus anyone seen importing an animal in a private vehicle at a point of entry would, prima facie, be committing an offence, as at present;

E

Under this option, the UK would give up quarantine altogether, regardless of the country of origin of the pet. Instead, all imported dogs and cats would have to be vaccinated;

F

This would be the same as option (e), with the addition that it would be compulsory for all dogs and cats in the UK, whether imported or not, to be vaccinated against rabies as soon as they were old enough. They would also have to be revaccinated when appropriate, following the recommendations of the manufacturer of the vaccine.