| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(14) In this section—
"commencement day" means the day on which this section comes into force;
"subsection (3) dog" means a dog whose tail has, on or after the commencement day, been wholly or partly removed without contravening subsection (1), because of the application of subsection (3).'.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
5.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a), in line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
Amendment (b), in line 36, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment (d), in line 41, at end insert ', or'.
Amendment (c), in line 42, leave out from 'day' to end of line 43.
Amendment (e), in line 44, leave out subsections (10) to (13).
Amendment (f), in line 63, leave out from beginning to end of line 66.
Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 21, clause 5, after 'apply', insert—
'(a) to the docking of the tail of a working gundog; or
(b) '.
Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
'(6) In subsection (4), "docking of the tail of a dog" means the deliberate removal of any part of a tail of a dog if the removal is carried out—
(a) by a veterinary surgeon; and
(b) on a dog which is less than 10 days old.'.
Government amendments Nos. 39 to 60.
Mr. Bradshaw:
The purpose of the first part of our deliberations this afternoon is to facilitate a debate and then, if the House desires, votes on the docking of dogs' tails. When we published the Bill, the Government said
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1332
that we would not seek to be a persuader on such a contentious issue, where views on both sides are strongly held and the evidence disputed. We said that we would listen to Members' views.
In Committee, the majority of Members who spoke advocated a total ban on the docking of dogs' tails. Some Members said that they would prefer an exemption for working dogs and no Member who spoke supported the status quo of allowing cosmetic docking. However, all members of the Committee, whatever their views, said that they felt that the issue should be opened up more widely to all Members. That is what we are doing now.
We are offering the House three options—first, a ban on tail docking, but with an exemption for working dogs; secondly, a ban with no exemption for working dogs; and thirdly, the status quo, which allows cosmetic docking. Of course, it will remain possible under all those options for a vet to dock a dog's tail if that is necessary for medical reasons—for example, because the tail is damaged or has become diseased.
Members who wish to support option one—a ban, with an exemption for working dogs—should vote for new clause 8, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and against amendments (a) to (f), which stand in my name. Members who want a total ban should vote for the new clause and those amendments. Members who wish to retain the status quo should vote against the new clause.
I wish to make it clear that I support an exemption for working dogs. I appreciate that that puts me in the somewhat unusual position of not voting for my own amendments. Amendments (a) to (f), which stand in my name, are intended to facilitate the deliberations of the House.
I do not intend to repeat the long arguments that were aired in Committee, so that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate. No doubt, Members will have been lobbied both for and against a working dogs exemption. However, to help the debate, I wish to say something about how the new clause banning docking, with a working dogs exemption, would work.
One of the main concerns expressed in Committee by those hon. Members whose minds were not already made up was that any exemption for working dogs should be workable and enforceable. The Government agreed, and we have endeavoured to achieve that in the new clause. Under the new clause, only a vet could preventively dock a dog's tail provided that, first, the dog is no more than five days old, and secondly, the vet has been shown specific evidence that the dog is likely to be used for work in connection with law enforcement, the armed forces, emergency rescue, pest control or the lawful shooting of animals.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op):
I am sorry to interrupt so early in my hon. Friend's explanation. However, the law is very clear that tail docking should be carried out only by a qualified veterinary surgeon, but the number of surgeons willing to do that operation and the number of dogs whose tails are docked do not correspond. Quite simply, the law is not being enforced
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1333
at the moment. That is the problem. Why is the law more likely to be enforced if we agree to the exemption compared with current practice, where the law is an ass?
Mr. Bradshaw: I shall come to some of the extra safeguards that we have put into the new clause in a minute, but there would be a fairly significant reduction in the overall number of dogs that could be docked legally, to about 20 per cent. of the current number. That is our estimate of the number of dogs docked currently that then go on to be worked.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, of course. I am about to explain some of the safeguards in a little more detail, but I am happy to take another intervention.
Richard Ottaway: New clause 8, on my reading of it, relates to dogs. What is the position for other animals—cats and, particularly, sheep, most of which are already docked?
Mr. Bradshaw: That is all in the Bill. There is a general prohibition on mutilation, with exemptions that will be set out in regulations. Those exemptions will not change the status quo—for example, for animals whose tails are legally docked currently—because the Government's original intention was to deal with the issue by regulation. However, feelings were so strong among hon. Members on both sides of the argument on Second Reading and in Committee that it was thought more appropriate for the issue to be settled once and for all in the Bill, rather than leaving it for future Governments to settle by regulation, which would not allow the same parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): For the benefit of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, will the Minister confirm that if new clause 8 and the relevant amendment are both rejected, there will not be a change to the Bill, and he will undertake to introduce a total exemption for tail docking of dogs in the regulatory process?
The vet would issue the owner with a certificate showing that the dog had been docked legitimately and detailing the evidence that they had seen. The puppy must be microchipped before it is three months old and the microchip number added to the certificate. The effectiveness of the new clause hangs on the definition of a dog that is "likely" to work. The Government have sought to define that tightly, but we also propose to introduce a delegated power to allow the appropriate national authority to tighten it further as necessary. I will explain to the House how we would use the power initially if the new clause is passed unamended. Through regulations, we would prescribe a template certificate that a vet must use for each dog that they dock and which would record the details of the vet, the owner, the date of docking and the microchip number. The vet and the owner would sign it—the owner to confirm that they had not provided false information. Providing false information would be an offence carrying a penalty of
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1334
up to 51 weeks in prison, or a level 4 fine—currently £2,500—or both. The regulations would specify, too, the evidence that the vet must be shown before they could certify that a dog was likely to work. For law enforcers, for example, that could be a police identification badge and evidence from the head of a police force's breeding programme that the dog was intended to be worked.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |