2.4  On 22 December 1999 the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) Order 1999 (the 1999 PETS scheme Order) was laid before Parliament, making it possible, from 28 February 2000, for an individual to bring a pet dog into England from certain European countries (including Spain), without the need to comply with the provisions of the 1974 Rabies Order. Importation under the 1999 PETS scheme Order was made dependent upon several conditions: that the animal is transported to England using a MAFF approved carrier using a permitted route; that the animal is identifiable by means of a microchip implanted into its body; and that, once microchipped, the animal is vaccinated against rabies and given any necessary booster injections. Additionally, at the port of embarkation, the animal’s keeper must produce two official health certificates: the first confirming that a blood sample has been taken, and has tested satisfactorily for rabies antibodies at a recognised laboratory, at least six months before importation to England; the second confirming that, not less than 24 hours and not more than 48 hours before embarkation for England, the animal has been treated against ticks and the tapeworm Echinococcus Multilocularis. The animal’s keeper must also produce a third certificate, signed on the day of travel, confirming that the animal has not been outside any of the qualifying countries involved in the PETS scheme during the previous six months.

2.5  Responsibility for checking that the certification produced by an animal’s keeper satisfies the requirements of the 1999 PETS scheme Order falls to MAFF approved carriers. If an animal fails to meet some or all of the conditions for importation under the PETS scheme, the carrier must refuse it permission to enter England under the PETS scheme.  However, the animal may still travel to England under the 1974 Rabies Order (paragraph 2.3).  Provided that it essentially satisfies the requirements of the PETS scheme as detailed above, MAFF may, under an amendment to the 1974 Rabies Order made by the 1999 PETS scheme Order, grant a licence allowing its early release from quarantine.

Back to top

Jurisdiction

2.6  The actions of the Spanish authorities are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This report is therefore concerned only with the administrative actions of MAFF in the context of implementing the PETS scheme.

Mr O’s account of events

2.7  On 14 February 2000 Mr O, a resident of Spain who wished to return permanently to the UK, sent a fax to MAFF.  He explained that the PETS scheme certificates, which he required to transport his dog to the UK, were not available in Spain; although he had Spanish documentation proving that his dog met the legislative criteria (paragraph 2.4).  Mr O, who had arranged to travel to the UK on 28 February, said that if the MAFF certificates did not arrive at his local vet by 26 February he would have to leave for Calais without them. Mr O explained that he had to reach Calais (an 850-mile journey) within 48 hours to ensure that the tick and worm treatment required under the PETS scheme remained valid for travel. On 15 February MAFF replied that, unfortunately, the Spanish PETS scheme certificates were unavailable. However, the final draft certificates had been agreed with the Spanish authorities; it was now a matter for the Spanish authorities to print and issue them. MAFF told Mr O that if the certificates were not available in Spain before 28 February, he would have to obtain a certificate in another qualifying country (for example France), or place his pet in quarantine on arrival in the UK and apply for its early release (paragraph 2.5).

2.8  On 28 February Mr O and his wife arrived at Calais, where a MAFF vet examined the paperwork that Mr O had obtained in Spain.  The MAFF vet acknowledged that Mr O’s dog posed no health risk; but he refused to allow it entry into the UK without the valid PETS scheme certificates. The vet suggested that Mr O either obtain the necessary certification in France or place his dog in quarantine upon arrival in the UK. He was offered no information about local vets able to provide the relevant certificates. With time running out for the effectiveness of the parasite vaccination and no knowledge of where in France he could obtain the certificate, Mr O chose the latter option.  That same day Mr O and his wife travelled to the UK and placed their dog in quarantine. On 3 March Mr O’s dog was granted early release from quarantine; the cost of the kennel fees having totalled £236.18.

Back to top

2.9  On 3 April and 15 May Mr O wrote to MAFF complaining about his experience of the PETS scheme. In particular, he complained about the lack of availability in Spain of the certification required immediately prior to the PETS scheme’s implementation and MAFF’s refusal to allow his healthy and vaccinated animal entry to the UK on 28 February. On 6 June the Member wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inviting him to comment on the matters that Mr O had raised.  On 20 June MAFF told Mr O that they would send a reply to the Member covering each of those letters.  Accordingly, on 17 July the then Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to the Member.  She explained that for several months MAFF had been discussing with authorities in countries eligible for the scheme, including Spain, the information that the certificates needed to contain, so that the national authorities could produce them.  It was a matter for the Spanish authorities to print and issue such certificates.  There had been some delay in making the certificates generally available because the Spanish had decided to make the certificates available through regional veterinary authorities; thereby introducing another step into the process. MAFF had done what they could (through the British Embassy and their overseas veterinary contacts) to see that certificates were available but it was not an area where UK authorities had any jurisdiction.  Mr O did not receive that reply until either late September or early October due to undiscovered difficulties with MAFF’s couriers (since resolved – see paragraph 2.14).

2.10  Meanwhile, on 2 August, Mr O complained similarly to the Spanish Consulate about his experience of the PETS scheme. On 10 August the Spanish Embassy told Mr O that on the date of the PETS scheme’s introduction the Spanish authorities had still been waiting for approval by MAFF of the draft certificates that they proposed to use.  The Spanish Embassy said that they believed that that was the only reason that could justify the fact that his documentation had been considered incorrect. They very much regretted that Mr O had had to bear the inconvenience and assured him that cases like his would not recur as their procedures were now completely established.

Back to top

The Department’s reply

2.11  In his comments to the Ombudsman on the case, the Permanent Secretary of MAFF said that extending and making accessible to the general public the internationally recognised procedures for the health certification of animals for import and export purposes under the PETS scheme had been a complex process. MAFF had not underestimated the potential problems that might arise for owners seeking to make their pets compliant with the scheme and had concluded that a simple failure to obtain the official certification should not automatically mean animals being subject to the full rigour of the quarantine regulations. They had decided that if it could be shown that an animal met identification, health and residence conditions, then early release from quarantine should be possible. In practice that meant that Mr O had had to wait only a few days for his dog to be released from quarantine rather than six months. Animals not covered by the PETS scheme had not been able to benefit from that concession.

2.12  It had not been in MAFF’s power to make official PETS scheme certificates available in Spain or any other of the qualifying countries. Certification of the freedom of animals from serious disease had had to be done in accordance with the international procedures. In the case of the PETS scheme, MAFF had approved the form of the Spanish certificate nearly two weeks before it was needed.  Subsequent to that the Spanish authorities had decided to issue regional certificates instead of a single national one.  Despite that change, MAFF had made it clear to the Spanish authorities that the regional certificates would be acceptable, provided that they differed only slightly from the national model.  The carriers due to undertake the checks on animals entering the UK under the PETS scheme (paragraph 2.5) had been informed accordingly. On 23 February 2000 the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture had sent out model certificates to their 17 regional governments.  On 25 February  the British Embassy in Madrid had sent copies of the model certificates to all British Consulates in Spain, explaining that the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture would have no objection to those being used should the regional versions not be available, but that it was for the local region to make the decision.  Information on the French certificate was also sent to cover the possibility that travellers would obtain documentation in France rather than Spain.  Different Spanish regions had produced different certificates at different times so the availability of official certificates in particular parts of Spain on the first day of the PETS scheme was a matter of conjecture. However, it was clear from the carriers’ records (see paragraph 2.17) that four animals from Spain had travelled successfully to England on 28 February demonstrating that certificates had been available in some Spanish regions.

2.13  The Permanent Secretary said that he considered that MAFF had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the PETS scheme certificates had been available in Spain. Ultimately, MAFF had no control over the action taken by the Spanish authorities and had been heavily reliant on their co-operation and goodwill. The only alternative to starting the scheme without an absolute assurance that the certificates would be available would have been to defer its start. That would have put Mr O and other pet owners seeking to travel from Western Europe in a worse position. They would have had to defer their date of travel or put their pets into quarantine for several weeks or even months before the scheme came into operation. MAFF added that early announcement of the PETS scheme had been necessary because pet owners needed considerable time to prepare their animals, so a rough start date (“by April 2000”) had had to be given well in advance.  To make changes to the start date after 22 December would have required an amendment to the statutory instrument already in place. The most likely effect of trying to have all administrative arrangements in place before announcing the PETS start date would have been to defer the PETS scheme’s introduction for several months, if not longer. Bearing in mind the Government’s desire to extend PETS to other countries, insistence on a requirement to have all arrangements in place before announcing the start date would mean that extension would be considerably deferred, to the detriment of pet owners’ interests.

Back to top

2.14  The advice given by MAFF to Mr O had always been accurate and consistent.  He had been fully aware that, if a PETS scheme certificate did not become available, licensing into quarantine for early release, under special conditions, was a potential way forward. In fact, on 23 February MAFF had issued an import licence allowing for Mr O’s dog to be transported to a quarantine kennel. Mr O had chosen to travel and put his dog into kennels; therefore, MAFF could not be responsible for the fees incurred. The Permanent Secretary said that he regretted the delay in getting the Ministerial response to Mr O and offered his apologies for any inconvenience that it had caused at the time. He explained that that delay had been the direct result of a failure by the external courier firm contracted by MAFF to deliver certain mail to the House of Commons.  MAFF had since terminated the contract and a full investigation into the causes of the failure had been carried out to ensure that the situation was not repeated.

Later developments

2.15  The Ombudsman’s staff asked Mr O to detail the arrangements that he had made for placing his dog into a quarantine kennel on arrival in the UK.  Mr O said that he had telephoned a kennel in the UK just before leaving Spain, with a view to forming an alternative plan if it proved impossible to take his dog into the UK on the strength of the veterinary papers that he had obtained. He could not recall making a reservation for his dog to stay at the kennel at that time and certainly made no advance payment of kennel fees and did not apply for an import certificate.  (Note: An application had been made by the kennel.) Mr O said that he had next contacted the kennel on 28 February, after learning that his dog could not enter the UK under the PETS scheme (paragraph 2.8). Mr O said that he had telephoned the kennel from the office occupied by the MAFF vet at Calais and arranged for someone to meet him at the Dover ferry terminal to collect his dog. Upon the ferry’s arrival at Dover, a member of the kennel staff had joined him and his wife on board. Mr O recalled that he had at that point paid a credit card deposit and had handed over his dog and the accompanying Spanish veterinary certification to the kennel staff.

2.16  The Ombudsman’s staff asked MAFF to explain how the PETS scheme had been operating in other EC countries at the time of Mr O’s difficulties.  MAFF replied that the approach to all countries covered by the PETS scheme had been the same.  MAFF’s Chief Veterinary Officer had sent out letters on 2 July and 13 August 1999 about certification to the responsible officer in every country.  Where countries had seemed slow to produce certificates Embassies continued to press for action. Certificates had been approved by 28 February for all participating countries except Andorra, San Marino and Greece.  However, in some cases there had been distribution problems.

2.17  The table below lists the total number of animals presented for travel to the UK under the PETS scheme on 28 February and the number of animals that failed the carrier checks.  (Those countries from which no animals travelled have been omitted from the table.)  

Back to top

Points to note are that:

• 72 animals travelled successfully from eight of the PETS scheme countries;
• four animals travelled successfully from Spain;
• non-availability of certificates was not the only reason for failure. Two of the animals making a round trip from the UK had no rabies certification although rabies certificates were certainly available here.

2.18  During the whole of the first month of the PETS scheme, Spain had the largest percentage of failures, largely attributable to the lack of a rabies certificate, although there were some tick and tapeworm failures.  Nonetheless, 50 animals entered the UK successfully.  The Ombudsman’s staff were told that by early 2001 the largest single cause of failures under the PETS scheme from all countries was caused by the requirement to obtain a tick and tapeworm certificate.  However, the problem was not primarily one of getting hold of certificates.  The timing of the treatment – between 24 and 48 hours before travelling – was the main complication.

Findings

2.19 I am satisfied that when Mr O applied to transport his dog to England on 28 February 2000 under the PETS scheme, the Spanish documentation that he was able to produce detailing his dog’s vaccination history clearly did not meet the requirements of the legislation (paragraph 2.4). Mr O had prepared his dog well over the preceding months by ensuring that it had received the appropriate veterinary treatment. However, his inability (through no fault of his own) to produce the two official health certificates necessary for importation to England, meant that the carrier had no alternative but to refuse his application. Furthermore, the MAFF vet in attendance at the port that day (who Mr O contends acknowledged that his dog posed no health risk) had no authority to overrule the carrier’s decision and, indeed, had he done so, he would have acted unlawfully (paragraph 2.5 and annex paragraphs 15, 16 and 22). The only assistance that the MAFF vet could offer Mr O in the light of the carrier’s refusal to import his dog under the PETS scheme was to advise him of the alternatives available. That he appears to have done, although I found his suggestion that Mr O obtain official certification in France would have entailed a delay for Mr O of at least 24 hours (to allow for the tick and tapeworm treatment to be re-administered), effectively rendering that option impractical. That left Mr O, realistically, with just two remaining options: to travel to England and place his dog into quarantine under the existing (1974) scheme (paragraph 2.3); or to travel to England and place his dog into quarantine under the existing scheme and subsequently apply for its early release under the PETS scheme (paragraph 2.5). As Mr O had sufficient Spanish veterinary documentation to confirm that his dog was healthy and he had had the foresight to contact a kennel in England whilst still in Spain (paragraph 2.15), which in turn had contacted MAFF on his behalf (annex paragraph 14), he chose the latter option. Accordingly, on 3 March MAFF granted Mr O’s dog early release from quarantine. While I appreciate that Mr O remains disappointed that he was unable to make full use of the PETS scheme, it should be some comfort to him that his dog spent only four days in quarantine rather than six months.

Back to top

2.20  On his return to England Mr O, dismayed that he had been required to pay for his animal to be quarantined, challenged both MAFF and the Spanish authorities as to the reasons why there had been no official health certification available in Spain immediately prior to the PETS scheme’s implementation. MAFF failed to reply to Mr O’s initial letters of complaint, for which I criticise them; and when they finally did provide a response, their letter went astray, delaying matters for almost three months (paragraph 2.9). The Permanent Secretary has explained the reason for that delay and has offered his further apologies to Mr O, through this report, for any inconvenience that it caused him (paragraph 2.14). Nevertheless, MAFF’s reply laid the blame for Mr O’s lack of the relevant PETS scheme certification firmly on the Spanish authorities by alleging that Spain had delayed the availability of certificates by deciding to issue them on a regional rather than a national basis – whilst the Spanish Embassy’s reply (paragraph 2.10) laid the blame equally firmly on MAFF by alleging that MAFF had still to agree the certification at the time of the PETS scheme’s implementation.

2.21  Such contradictory accounts led me to examine MAFF’s papers thoroughly on this key issue. I can confirm that MAFF did indeed approve the Spanish authorities’ final draft certificates on 15 February. I can only conclude that, when the Spanish Embassy told Mr O that they had still been awaiting MAFF’s approval of their proposed certificates on 28 February 2000 (paragraph 2.10), they were mistaken. I can also confirm that on 16 February the Spanish authorities told MAFF, for the first time, that they could not guarantee that the certificates would be available in time for the start of the PETS scheme because each of their 17 regional governments would be responsible for producing its own certificates (annex paragraph 18). That decision, which was completely outside MAFF’s control, was in my opinion the major factor which delayed the availability of the PETS scheme certificates in Spain. While I accept that MAFF had no control over how the Spanish authorities decided to administer their responsibilities towards the PETS scheme, I found it disappointing that, in view of the fact that Spanish animal health certificates for inter-Community trade are routinely handled by the regional governments, MAFF had failed to obtain an early written assurance from the Spanish authorities as to their intended way forward on the matter. Had they done so it may well have had little or no impact upon the availability of certificates in Spain at the start of the PETS scheme, but MAFF would have been in a better position to have advised Mr O and perhaps encouraged him to delay his return home, if he wished to ensure a smooth passage.

2.22  Could MAFF have taken any additional steps to ensure that the draft certificates proposed by the Spanish authorities had been approved earlier? My examination of the papers detailing the preparatory work undertaken for the implementation of the PETS scheme supports the account offered by MAFF which I have annexed to this report. MAFF contacted each of the 20 countries due to participate in the PETS scheme in July 1999. For reasons which I cannot explain, the Spanish authorities delayed responding to MAFF’s initial contact until late September and the response that they did provide highlighted their concern on a technical matter, which subsequently required some clarification (annex paragraphs 17 and 27) and contributed in a small way to the delay that had already developed. MAFF maintained regular contact with the Spanish authorities (involving the British Embassy in Madrid) to ensure that the content and availability of Spain’s official certificates was facilitated quickly and smoothly. Despite MAFF’s repeated urgings, the Spanish authorities were unable to provide a first draft until January 2000 (some six months after MAFF’s initial request) and the draft that they did provide was fundamentally flawed in that it combined the two certificates into one. Nevertheless, MAFF quickly overcame that difficulty and within a month of having received Spain’s first draft, a certificate acceptable to both parties was agreed – a good effort considering that each item of correspondence had to be translated by the British Embassy in Madrid.

Back to top

2.23  That prompted me to consider what other options were available to MAFF once they had become aware that Spain might have difficulty in making the PETS scheme certification available on time. MAFF have told the Ombudsman’s staff that as they were heavily reliant on the Spanish authorities’ co-operation, their only option to starting the scheme without an assurance that the certificates would be available would have been to defer the PETS scheme’s start. MAFF contend that such a move would have placed Mr O (and many others) in a worse position than the one in which he found himself (paragraph 2.13). Furthermore, had MAFF decided on such a deferment later than 22 December 1999, an amendment to the 1999 PETS scheme Order would have been required (paragraph 2.13). I accept that both of those explanations are correct; however, they do not explain the situation fully, in that they fail to take account of the impact which MAFF’s decision in December 1999 to bring forward the implementation of the PETS scheme from the start of April to 28 February 2000 might have had upon events in Spain. (That decision effectively removed a whole month from the implementation timetable.) In the light of that omission I asked the Permanent Secretary of MAFF why the start date of the PETS scheme had been brought forward and how he believed that decision had impacted upon MAFF’s effectiveness to deliver the PETS scheme on time. In response, he said that the prime reason for an earlier start had been the express wish of the transport companies for the PETS scheme to start as soon as possible in order to have the system in place before the expected Easter rush of travellers.  Ministers had shared that aspiration.  Pet owners and groups representing them also had been anxious to introduce the PETS scheme as soon as possible.  He went on to explain that the decision to advance the date had not been taken lightly; but MAFF had been satisfied that the PETS scheme’s procedures had been sufficiently well advanced not to delay its introduction any further. The veterinary procedures with which pets had to comply had been publicised at least six months prior to the PETS scheme start date.  Certification arrangements, both in the UK and abroad, had been well advanced and supported by evidence from qualifying countries that they would be in place by the PETS scheme start date.  A range of transport companies had been in line to participate with no problems anticipated as to their authorisation.  In essence, a value judgment had been made that the PETS scheme was sufficiently robust to allow it to start ahead of schedule.  I accept that this conclusion was a reasonable one to reach within the context of the whole picture.  It was far from clear that the operation in Spain would be problem-free and the decision made carried with it some risk in respect of Spain.  Nevertheless, I do not regard it as maladministrative in the circumstances of the wider initiative.

Back to top

Conclusion

2.24  I do not uphold Mr O’s complaint that MAFF failed to implement properly the PETS scheme in respect of animals travelling from Spain.  It was unfortunate in the context of Mr O’s case that the start of the PETS scheme was brought forward by one month.  However, I do not consider that MAFF’s decision in that regard constituted maladministration. There was some delay in providing a response to Mr O’s complaint about the PETS scheme.  I regard the Permanent Secretary’s apologies and explanations as a suitable response to that aspect.

Annex

Previous < Contents > Next

Back to top

Last updated: 4 April 2005