---

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): One could drive a coach and horses through the regulations on law enforcement by taking a four-year-old dog to the vet and saying, "I'm going to use this dog to protect my scrapyard. Keeping trespassers out is law enforcement, so can you dock its tail?" Because proposed subsection (4) of the new clause does not say that the dog must be used predominantly as a guard dog, after the scrapyard owner has used the dog for two days he can sell it to a man in a pub as a docked dog and escape scot-free.

Mr. Bradshaw: There would not be any circumstances under which a four-year-old could have its tail docked. [Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend meant four days.

John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): I am glad that the Minister has abandoned his self-denying ordinance, because I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee and thus did not hear his mellifluous tones, but I am more than happy to do so this afternoon. Great    man though he is, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has an insatiably suspicious disposition, and I am not sure that his suspicion is justified. Will the Minister clarify the regulation-making process? Why cannot we see—or perhaps we can—draft regulations before the final passage of the Bill, as that always makes me much more sanguine than knowing that they will be published at a later, unspecified date?

Mr. Bradshaw: I do not rule that out, because the Bill still has to proceed to another place. If it will reassure the hon. Gentleman, I am certainly prepared to consider that suggestion with officials to see if we can do so when the Bill returns to the House. Briefly, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I accept that there are Members on both sides of the House who will not vote for the exemption because they do not think that it is drawn tightly enough or is enforceable. I take a different view and I urge them to listen patiently to the extra safeguards that we have included. If that does not change their minds, the way in which they cast their vote is their prerogative—we are offering a free vote, as is every party in the House.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): Would I be prosecuted if I went to a rescue centre and bought a dog with a docked tail that was born after the commencement of the measure?

Mr. Bradshaw: Not if the tail had been docked legally. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman would not be responsible, as the offence was committed by the person who docked the tail illegally, or perhaps by the vet who allowed it to be done illegally.
 
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1335
 

As I was saying, the vet would issue the owner with a certificate showing that the dog had been docked legitimately and detailing the evidence that the vet had seen. The pup must be microchipped before it is three months old and the microchip number added to the certificate. The new clause includes provisions to drive down the demand for cosmetically docked dogs, which is extremely important for Members who are considering voting for the exemption, but would like more reassurance that it will bite—excuse the pun. Experience from Sweden and Germany—countries with a complete ban and an exemption for working dogs, respectively—suggests that not restricting the showing of docked dogs results in continuing demand for them and incentives to find ways around a ban, including importing. Therefore, the Government propose restricting the showing of legally docked dogs to demonstrations of their working ability. That is not because of any distaste for showing, but to support the aim that only dogs intended for working are docked. That would ensure that the number of dogs docked would be kept to a minimum.

Amendments (a) to (f), tabled in my name, would remove the exemption from working dogs currently set out in the new clause. The amendments also remove the exemption that allows certified docked dogs to be shown to demonstrate their working ability. Under the amendments, no dog docked after the provision is enacted could be shown.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): My question relates to the Minister's earlier point. I believe that in many cases people cannot decide for some time—certainly not by the five-day stage—whether a dog is suitable as a working dog, so is the intention to give people latitude to have several puppies to choose from for their working purpose, or would the exemption be narrow and possibly lead to problems?

Mr. Bradshaw: In the end, we will have to leave it to the courts to decide whether the intention at the time was for the dogs to be worked. The right hon. Gentleman is right—it is not always possible to know for certain at the time of the docking that the dog will definitely be worked, even though the likelihood exists and can be certified by a vet who sees the dam. That is why some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members are concerned about an exemption. Nobody has proposed a tighter exemption because it is difficult to devise one. We have done our best to do so in order to facilitate a free vote.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I support the Government's new clause, but does the Minister accept the view that I take—that a blanket ban on docking is bad for animal welfare because some working dogs will necessarily suffer if they are not docked, yet are used in perfectly legal activities in the countryside? Would he, like me, counsel those who want a blanket ban to recognise that that will have the opposite effect in some cases, by increasing animal suffering rather than reducing it, as the Minister is attempting to do in a reasonable way in new clause 8?
 
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1336
 

Mr. Bradshaw: That was the point. The reason I am supporting the exemption is that I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman.

If the House chooses not to vote for the new clause, that will leave it open, as I reaffirmed to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) a moment ago, to the Government to make regulations exempting tail-docking from the general ban on mutilations prescribed in clause 5. The Government would subsequently be able to alter the law without recourse to primary legislation. Despite the strength of feeling on all sides, the House may still detect some virtue in this flexibility.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) would introduce an exemption for working dogs from the ban on mutilations. However, there are problems with the drafting. Amendment No. 5 seeks to define a term that does not appear in amendment No. 4. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's new clause is a more appropriate way to achieve a ban on docking, with a working dog exemption. I hope that on this basis he will not press his amendments.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) (Lab): I may be wrong, but I think that I heard my hon. Friend say that there was an exemption for working dogs in Sweden. My understanding is that that is not the case. Does he intend to name the breeds to which the exemptions will apply?

Mr. Bradshaw: No, I will not name the breeds now. That will be subject to regulation, but the breeds will be named. That will be part of the template document for the vet, and they would be tightly drawn. My hon. Friend misheard what I said about Germany and Sweden. Sweden has a total ban. Germany has a ban with an exemption for working dogs, but in both countries Governments and animal welfare organisations argue that the much more important aspect is the ban on showing. That is what we are including in the exemption. The ban on showing acts as the biggest disincentive to illegal docking or the import of docked breeds.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Before the Minister moves on from specific breeds, will he confirm that it is possible for cross breeds to make excellent working dogs?

5.45 pm

Mr. Bradshaw: I will give hon. Members a further insight into the breeds that we would consider if the new clause were passed without amendment. The exemption for working dogs would include spaniels, hunt point retrieve breeds, working terriers and crosses involving one or more of those types.

Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend clarify the evidence on which he has formulated the proposed exemption? What is the potential damage to working dogs if docking is forbidden? [Interruption.]

Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment says from a
 
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1337
 
sedentary position that the matter is disputed. He takes a different view from me, and I suspect that we will be in different Lobbies later this evening. Not only the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but the police have produced evidence on that point in the past few days. The police have provided compelling evidence on the number of dogs that they use in important security operations that have had to have their tails docked later in life because of injuries that they have sustained in the course of their work.

---