The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Eric
Martlew
†
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben
(Minister for Local Environment, Marine and
Animal
Welfare)
†
Butler,
Ms Dawn
(Brent, South)
(Lab)
†
Cruddas,
Jon
(Dagenham)
(Lab)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
†
Gerrard,
Mr. Neil
(Walthamstow)
(Lab)
†
Goodman,
Helen
(Bishop Auckland)
(Lab)
†
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
†
Hands,
Mr. Greg
(Hammersmith and Fulham)
(Con)
†
Holloway,
Mr. Adam
(Gravesham)
(Con)
†
Horwood,
Martin
(Cheltenham)
(LD)
†
Kidney,
Mr. David
(Stafford)
(Lab)
MacShane,
Mr. Denis
(Rotherham)
(Lab)
†
Milburn,
Mr. Alan
(Darlington)
(Lab)
†
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
†
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster)
(Con)
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Wills,
Mr. Michael
(North Swindon)
(Lab)
Mark
Oxborough, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 13
March
2007
[Mr.
Eric Martlew
in the
Chair]
Draft Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007
10.30
am
The
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
I beg to move,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England)
Regulations
2007.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to consider the
draft Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 and
the draft Welfare of Animals (Miscellaneous Revocations) (England)
Regulations
2007.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am pleased that the Committee has agreed to
debate the three sets of regulations together. They are a key part of
the implementation of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the bulk of which we
hope will come into force on April
6.
The Mutilations
(Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 will consolidate
existing legislation that relates to the mutilation of animals. The
Animal Welfare Act 2006, prohibits all mutilations of animals other
than for the purpose of medical treatment, but subject to any
exceptions as may be specified in regulations; the Government are
exercising the latter permission in this
proposal.
It is
commonly agreed that some mutilations are necessary for an
animal’s long-term welfare or benefit, whether for reproduction
control, identification or better management, leading to improved
welfare. In addition, some forms of mutilation—for example, the
ear-tagging of certain animals for identification purposes—are
required by law.
The
permitted procedures are set out in schedule 1, with conditions
attached to their use, such as the use of anaesthetic or a maximum or
minimum age at which the procedure can be performed under schedules 2
to 9. In addition, regulation 3 provides that the procedure must be
carried out in such a way as to minimise pain and suffering, in
hygienic conditions and in accordance with good practice. Those
safeguards provide more generally for all kinds of cases that may
arise. Regulation 4 will exempt any procedure that is carried out in an
emergency to relieve pain or to save
life.
In deciding
which mutilations should be permitted, we have largely repeated those
permitted under existing legislation, but we have also consulted widely
about any other procedure that should, or should not, be allowed and
the status quo has been replicated in most cases. However, unlike
present legislation in which certain procedures are banned, the new
regulations will also ban outdated and unacceptable practices not
specifically outlawed at present.
We have identified 20 practices
that are not subject to legislation at present and that are no longer
generally considered justifiable on animal welfare grounds; they will
no longer be permitted. They include procedures such as the application
of corrosive acids to an animal’s skin, the devoicing of
cockerels, the ear-cropping of dogs and the drilling of
tortoises’ shells.
The Mutilations (Permitted
Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 are accompanied by the Welfare
of Animals (Miscellaneous Revocations) (England) Regulations 2007,
which will revoke the current legislation on mutilations of farmed
animals that will be replaced by the mutilations
regulations.
The
Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007 will
supply the necessary mechanisms by which the principle of the limited
tail docking of dogs agreed by the House of Commons in March last year
may have effect. We had a thorough debate on the subject at that time
and all the main parties allowed Members of Parliament a free vote in
which a ban on tail docking, with an exemption for working dogs, was
the preferred
outcome.
The exemption
for working dogs allows a dog that is likely to be used for specified
types of work to have its tail docked by a vet. The dog must not be
more than five days old at the time of docking and the vet will have to
certify that he or she has seen evidence that it is specified in the
regulations that the dog is likely to work in one of a few permitted
areas: law enforcement, the activities of Her Majesty’s armed
forces, emergency rescue, lawful pest control or the lawful shooting of
animals.
The
vet’s decision on whether to dock is discretionary; the measure
will not require a vet to dock an eligible dog’s tail. Vets will
continue to be permitted to dock the tail of a dog at any age for the
purpose of its medical treatment. To ensure that only dogs that are
genuinely likely to work are docked, the regulations detail how those
dogs will be identified and certificated. I commend the regulations to
the Committee.
10.34
am
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): The tail-docking debate was
covered extensively at various stages in the consideration of the
Animal Welfare Bill—in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee, which examined the first draft, in the Standing Committee
and in a heated debated on the Floor of the House. I am pleased that
the Minister followed the suggestions of many to ensure that the issue
was dealt with in the Bill, rather than by regulation.
Rather than dwell on tail
docking, I want to focus on the content of the regulations and ask the
Minister to clarify a number of points. First, am I right in assuming
that the docking of dogs’ tails can only be done surgically and
not with a rubber band? Secondly, following the criticism in the other
place last week of drafting errors in the regulations that led to their
withdrawal, will the Minister tell us whether any changes to the
regulations are likely? Thirdly, the regulations are due to come into
force on 6 April. As the Easter recess is drawing ever closer, will
they be debated in the other place?
The regulations are important,
and it is right that they are in the first tranche of secondary
legislation. When the 2006 Act was being passed, the enforcement and
workability of the legislation was a central theme of debate. However,
there seem to be questions about the regulations and the parent
Act.
These laws do
not make it easy for inspectors and constables who enforce the
regulations to identify dogs with lawfully or unlawfully docked tails.
Importantly, they do not appear to have the power to demand to see the
certificate that proves whether or not a tail was legally docked. If
someone is driving and is pulled over by the police, legally, they have
up to seven days to produce their driving licence. However, if an
inspector or a constable suspects that a tail has been docked
illegally, they have no corresponding power to request to see the
docking certificate—the key piece of proof that no illegal act
has taken place.
Will
the Minister clarify whether an owner is obliged to show the docking
certificate to an inspector, constable or anyone else? Will he tell us
where that requirement is in the legislation? I am delighted to notice
pieces of paper passing backwards and forwards. I shall be most
grateful when we hear the answers to those questions. The requirement
is not in section 6, which deals with docking, or section 23 of the
Act.
Section 6(13)
states that the regulations may be made by the national authority with
regard to the function of inspectors in relation to docking
certificates and the identification of docked dogs. Will the Minister
provide further details about that provision and say whether he intends
to introduce any of those regulations and whether they could be used to
grant inspectors the power to demand sight of a docking certificate?
Furthermore, will the veterinary surgeon who carried out the procedure
be required to keep a record of the docking? If so, could an inspector
who was investigating a suspected illegal docking request sight of that
copy?
Moreover, with
reference to docking under section 23, what evidence would need to be
shown to a magistrate to demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds
to suspect that an offence had been committed and a warrant required?
For example, would refusal to answer an inspector’s question or
request for a docking certificate be sufficient and reasonable grounds
for obtaining a warrant?
I know from paragraph 16 of the
regulatory impact assessment that the Minister does not anticipate any
more than a handful of prosecutions for offences under the regulations.
Does he intend to issue guidelines to police and inspectors about how
to interpret and enforce the legislation? He estimates that police
enforcement costs will be minimal. Is that because he intends local
authority inspectors and private organisations, such as the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to bear the brunt of
the costs and responsibility for enforcing the docking
legislation?
Moving on
to microchipping, the suggestion that docked dogs should be placed on
to a national register has been dismissed by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as unnecessary red tape and not in
line with the Government’s better regulation agenda. However, in
the Animal Welfare
Bill’s regulatory impact assessment, the Government stated their
desire to establish an animal welfare enforcement database.
Will the Minister update us on
those plans? Will he consider using such a database to keep a central
record of docked dogs? It would be invaluable to those who enforce the
regulations if they could merely check a dog’s microchip with a
database to confirm whether illegal docking had been performed.
Moreover, it would be a good back-up in the event of a docking
certificate being lost by an
owner.
Most responses
to the consultation on the regulations favoured microchipping happening
at the same time as the docking procedure. Will the Minister explain
why it was decided that there could be as much as a three-month time
span between the dog being docked and its being microchipped? Unless
the same vet who performed the docking also does the microchipping,
problems may occur in ensuring that the legislation is effectively
applied.
Moving on to
the regulations on mutilation, will the Minister provide some clarity
about castration? There appears to be some confusion over the time span
when anaesthetics are required and when they are not. For cattle, the
regulations state that an anaesthetic is needed for cows over two
months old, with no further details for cattle under two months old,
other than the use of a rubber ring in the first seven days. For sheep,
an anaesthetic is needed for those aged three months and over and a
rubber ring for those aged seven days and under, but nothing between
the seven days to two month period.
Last January, when dockings and
mutilations were debated in Committee during the consideration of the
Animal Welfare Bill, the Minister helpfully provided us with a draft of
the proposed mutilations exempted procedures that was clearer on this
matter. Although that draft has not survived to the present day, it
contained a table that detailed the dates that certain procedures and
anaesthetics could and could not be used for certain animals. It
explicitly stated that anaesthetic was not required for cattle under
two months old and likewise for sheep under three months old. Can the
Minister confirm whether that is still the position, as it is not
explicitly stated in the current draft?
The regulations also permit the
tooth reduction of pigs, as with the Welfare of Farmed Animals
(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Tooth reduction is only
permitted within the first seven days and when other environmental and
management systems have been used to prevent tail biting. Is it not the
case that tail biting takes place at a much later stage and that the
tooth damage is usually to sows’ teats? The consultation
document did not ask any questions about tooth reduction in pigs, and
concerns have been raised that reducing piglets’ teeth has no
impact on the incidence or severity of tail biting and other similar
vices when the pigs are older.
How many pig owners are the
regulations likely to apply to and does the Minister intend to issue
any further guidance on the environmental and management systems that
are adequate or will they be the same as those outlined in the 2003 pig
code? It would be helpful if the Minister clarified any research
that his Department has conducted to support the position outlined in
the regulations.
Finally, on a more general
point, when will the other secondary legislation and
regulations—such as those for greyhounds, circuses and the cat
code—follow, and can the Minister provide a helpful
timetable?
10.42
am
Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): This is a difficult and
controversial subject at times, but it is worth starting on a positive
note: the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was important and significant
legislation, on which the Government ought to be congratulated in many
respects. It advanced animal welfare, and although some of us may have
felt that it did not go far enough on issues such as the regulation of
animals in circuses, it was still an overwhelmingly positive
rationalisation and improvement of the previous legislative
position.
Much of
what we are considering today is therefore to be welcomed, as it is
simply implements many of the ideas that were contained in that Act.
Tail docking did provoke a debate; there was a free vote, as the hon.
Member for Leominster suggested, and it was a free vote for Liberal
Democrats. I voted for a complete ban, which did not carry through to
the Act, but that is not the question today.
There is a question about
whether or not the regulations are workable and enforceable. That is
complicated by the fact that we are addressing three pieces of
secondary legislation in one sitting—something that appears to
have tied our noble Friends in another place into something of a knot,
as they ended up with the motion being withdrawn on one set of
regulations and the question not being put on the other two. In a way,
I am raising a point of order during my speech: I would be grateful for
the Chairman’s guidance on exactly where that leaves us and, in
particular, on what we could do if we also wanted to oppose one set of
regulations but not the other
two.
The
Chairman:
On that point, the Committee had the option of
debating each set of regulations separately at the very beginning, and
it agreed to take them
together.
Martin
Horwood:
As with other Members present, I could blame the
House of Commons lifts, which held us up for three vital minutes. If
the Chairman and the Minister are not willing to make allowance for
that—which I would respectfully request that they do—that
would leave us in the position of having to vote against all three sets
of regulations, which would be unfortunate. I am not sure whether the
Chairman would give me further guidance on whether he would therefore
allow the taking
of—
The
Chairman:
Order. We are debating all the regulations
together, but we can vote on them
separately.
Martin
Horwood:
I am very grateful for your guidance on that.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Martlew.
Let us get
the two less controversial regulations out of the way first. The
Mutilation (Permitted Procedures)
(England) Regulations 2007 specify procedures to which offences under
sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the 2006 Act do not apply. They include all
the list of rather grisly mutilations that the Minister cited, but
allow things like ear-tagging for identification, castration and
vasectomy and laparoscopy. The consensus appears to be that those
regulations close important loopholes in the legislation and are part
of the important process of gathering regulations from different pieces
of legislation into one place, thereby making everyone’s job
easier. Those regulations are therefore to be welcomed and
supported.
The Welfare
of Animals (Miscellaneous Revocations) (England) Regulations 2007
represent even more of a technical implementation of the requirements
of the Act and also to be welcomed and supported.
The problem lies in the Docking
of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007. I confess to
being a little confused by the position of the hon. Member for
Leominster, who seems to have raised an important catalogue of problems
with the regulations but does not appear to be in a position thereby to
oppose them, despite the fact that this is the very moment when they
will be taken forward.
Bill
Wiggin:
I have put an extensive list to the Minister. I
have every confidence that he will answer my questions. It is a great
shame that the hon. Gentleman was not involved in Committee that
considered on the Animal Welfare Bill—one of his hon. Friends
took part in it. Otherwise, quite a lot of these questions will be
answerable. I have every confidence that the Minister will sort that
out. If he does not, I may reconsider how I
vote.
Martin
Horwood:
That was a welcome bout of optimism from the
Conservative party in so many different
ways.
It is
significant that, when Liberal Democrats and others—possibly
also Conservative Members—raised concerns during the passage of
the Bill about the breadth of powers that were not specified in the
Bill but promised in regulations subsequently, we were promised a great
deal of consultation before that secondary legislation was introduced.
I shall quote what the Minister said on
Report:
“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.”—[Official Report, 14 March
2006; Vol. 443, c. 1333.]
Are we presented with tight regulations
today? My impression—it seems to be that of many well informed
organisations—is that we are not.
As the Countess of Mar pointed
out in the Grand Committee in another place on 7 March, there is
considerable disquiet among organisations that we would have expected
the Government to have consulted, including the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons and the Kennel Club. In particular, she pointed out
the flaw to which the hon. Member for Leominster referred, which then
prompted the Minister’s noble Friend Lord Rooker to withdraw the
regulations on that occasion.
Regulation 3(1) points out that
the person who provides
“evidence that the dog is likely to
be used for a specified type of work and is a dog of a specified
type”
need not be the
owner of the dog but can be another person whom the veterinary
surgeon
“reasonably
believes to be representing the
owner”
and
“has shown him the evidence
specified in paragraph
(2).”
Paragraph (2)
states that the evidence is simply that the person who presents the
identification is a member of one of Her Majesty’s armed forces
or is otherwise employed or contracted to work for one of Her
Majesty’s armed forces, or is in one of the other official
capacities that are listed.
As the Countess of Mar pointed
out, that opens a very obvious loophole: there is no necessary
connection between the person who provides the
identification—for instance, a member of the armed
forces—and the owner or actual user of the dog. Therefore, it is
an extremely weakly drafted regulation and is open to very obvious
abuse, whereby people could simply get their friends who happen to be
in the armed forces to provide their identification on the occasion.
[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Scarborough and
Whitby groans, but that is the basis of the Countess of Mar’s
argument, which led to the withdrawal of the regulations in another
place. So it is clearly a serious argument, which the Minister’s
colleague took very seriously. The provision would put veterinary
surgeons in a difficult position.
Even more seriously, the
principal organisation that might be responsible for enforcing much of
the regulation—the RSPCA—has expressed a series of
concerns about how it will work out in practice. The RSPCA points out,
for instance, that the list of exempted breeds, which was supposed to
be tightly drawn, is not included in the regulations. The list of
breeds includes, for example:
“Terriers of any type or
combinations of
types.”
That is not a
specification of a breed.
A brief look at the Crufts
website will reveal that terriers are a group within which there are
many different breeds. I can tell the Minister that this year’s
supreme champion was Champion Araki Fabulous Willy—a Tibetan
terrier that would be exempted under the drafting. As he is extremely
hairy, it is difficult to tell from his photograph whether or not his
tail has been docked, but some kind of tail docking is clearly possible
in this case, and I would say that Champion Araki Fabulous Willy would
probably be mortified to be described as a working dog. However, the
regulations will allow a considerable loophole, because they are so
broadly drawn and are not specific about breed. Will the Minister
confirm whether Champion Araki Fabulous Willy will be covered by the
regulations?
Bill
Wiggin:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It
is my understanding of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 that no docked dog
can be shown and that it would be illegal to do
so.
Martin
Horwood:
That is important, and it demonstrates that the
looseness of the regulation is inconsistent with other parts of the
Act. That is serious. Clearly, I have chosen a rather obvious and
public example, but not all other dogs docked for cosmetic reasons would
necessarily be shown, so the point still
stands.
The RSPCA goes
on to state its concern about whether or not other aspects of the
regulations are workable and enforceable. The hon. Member for
Leominster referred to the fact that vets are not obliged to obtain the
documentation and certificate that relates to a docking, and there is
no obligation to present them when confronted by an RSPCA inspector.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the RSPCA is supposed to
check whether a dog has been legally docked. I gather that the RSPCA
has had guidance that it can use section 23 of the Act, but it does not
believe that the use of warrants will address the issue because the
grounds for obtaining a warrant may not be met in the first place. If a
warrant were to be issued, the investigator may be searching for a
document that does not exist. That seems to be a major flaw in the
regulations.
The
regulations provide for cross-breeds of different types of dogs to be
exempted from the ban on docking. The RSPCA comment:
“It is unclear whether
the cross-breeds must be of breeds within the exemption or any
cross-breed. Either way, it can be very difficult to effectively
enforce legislation including cross-breeds or
breed-types.”
All
members of the Committee will be aware of the unfortunate example of
the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which demonstrates the difficulty of
identifying certain breeds.
Furthermore, on the scope of
the exemption, the RSPCA points out that it should be limited
to
“those breeds that are
genuinely and regularly used as working dogs and are listed in the
regulations not general exemptions for all hunt point
retrievers”.
It gives the
example of the Large Munsterlander—I am not entirely sure what
that is—which is not traditionally docked, yet its docking would
be allowed under this broad drafting of the
legislation.
Finally,
on microchipping, which was referred to by the hon. Member for
Leominster, the RSPCA’s conclusion is
clear:
“The
Society believes that Parliament is being asked to agree to law that
does not address the promotion of animal welfare in a targeted manner,
and is not workable or enforceable. On this basis the RSPCA urges
parliamentarians to oppose the
regulations.”
When an
organisation of such authority and immediate relevance to the
legislation is so clearly opposed to it, especially an organisation
that was promised that it would be consulted on the drafting of the
regulations, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have no option
but to oppose the regulations. I shall therefore vote against the
Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations
2007.
I remain
confused by the position of the hon. Member for Leominster. I look
forward to him joining me in opposing the regulations, unless the
Minister gives us a remarkable rebuttal of the RSPCA’s position.
Unless he can be persuaded to follow the wise example of his noble
Friend and retreat for further consideration, I shall oppose the
Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007, but
not the other regulations.
10.56
am
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I welcome
the fact that the regulations reflect the view of Parliament. I am sure
that Ministers have listened to the views of groups such as the RSPCA,
but it is vital that the wishes of Parliament, as expressed in a
Division, are reflected in the legislation.
I must declare an interest as
the owner of a Patterdale cross Lakeland terrier. With terriers, the
decision on whether the dog is a working dog lies not with the owner
but in the dog’s brain. I have yet to come across a terrier that
is not convinced in its mind that it is a working dog. It will
disappear into any bramble thicket or any other part of my farm in
pursuit of a rat or a rabbit. Exempting not only pure-bred terriers but
crossbreds is sensible.
I should like to ask a question
about the use of elastrator rings. The majority of breeders who dock
dogs do so for animal welfare reasons. I speak as somebody who has both
castrated and de-tailed many thousands of lambs using elastic rings.
Was the decision not to include that method of tail docking taken for
welfare reasons or for reasons of practicality? If it were done by a
vet, the vet would presumably want to arrive, do the job and leave. To
use an elastrator ring takes time. Are there compelling animal welfare
reasons for allowing only surgical removal, or is it just for the
vet’s practical
reasons?
10.57
am
Mr.
Bradshaw:
If the hon. Member for Cheltenham does not mind
my saying so, he is trying to reopen a debate that was settled, as hon.
Members have rightly said, by a free vote on the Floor of the House and
in Committee at which he was not present. The RSPCA has always opposed
an exemption for working dogs, and I suspect that one of its reasons
for trying to delay the regulations is the belief that, if they were
struck out, we would have a total ban on all docking of tails, but we
would not have any ban; we would not even have a cosmetic ban. If the
hon. Gentleman had his way and the regulations were rejected, section 6
of the Act, which deals with the docking of dogs’ tails, would
not come into force and thousands of dogs’ tails would continue
to be docked for cosmetic reasons. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats
do not want
that.
Martin
Horwood:
We certainly do not. I made it clear in my
opening remarks that the issue at hand was not whether the ban should
be complete, but its enforceability and workability. That is what has
been debated, and I would be grateful to the Minister if he addressed
that point.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Of course I shall go on to address that point.
It is worth reminding hon. Members that, as a consequence of the
regulations, about 90 per cent. of dogs that currently have their tails
docked will no longer have them docked for cosmetic purposes. That will
be illegal.
The hon.
Member for Cheltenham was also wrong in relation to the concerns raised
by the Countess of Mar. The Government did not withdraw the regulations
on the strength of the Countess of Mar’s arguments,
but
because Grand Committee procedure does not allow for any Division. Lord
Rooker, the DEFRA Minister in the House of Lords, and my officials have
held a meeting with the Countess of Mar and other peers this morning,
and I am told that they are now satisfied that there is no drafting
error in the regulations, contrary to what they thought.
The Act requires the vet to
certify that the dog is of a type, and the regulations will allow him
to do so where attribution to a type take place on the basis that the
mother, the dam, conforms visually to the same type. We changed the
regulations in that way at the specific request of the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons. The regulations will not give the vet the power to
require the production of the mother, but if the mother is not shown to
the vet, he cannot proceed to certify and dock the
dog.
There will be
another debate in the House of Lords at the end of March. Given the
positive indications that I am told were made in this morning’s
meeting—the Countess of Mar has always opposed all tail docking,
even of working dogs—we believe that peers will be largely
satisfied with regulations and that they will not wish to frustrate
their progress, which would mean that the cosmetic docking of
dogs’ tails could continue for at least another six
months.
Bill
Wiggin:
The Minister has helpfully clarified one of the
points. If the dam were to die during the birth of the puppies, my
concern would be that, although they might be working dogs, failure to
produce a body would mean that the tail docking could not proceed. The
time frame is very short, so that probably is not a problem, but will
he clarify whether I have understood that
correctly?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As the hon. Gentleman indicates, that probably
will not be a problem, but such things are always at the discretion of
the vet. If the vet were satisfied that the evidence was sufficient,
the procedure could be carried out if the vet wanted to do
it.
On the question
from the hon. Member for Cheltenham about whether the winner of Crufts
would be exempted, he would not be exempted because he is not a working
dog. His owner would have needed to decide that it was necessary to
have his tail docked. The vet would have had to agree and evidence
would have had to be presented relating to his
work.
On the
obligation of a vet to retain a certificate and the obligation of an
owner to produce a certificate, if a document does not exist, the owner
cannot prove that he falls within the exemption and therefore the owner
will be liable to prosecution and conviction. One assumes that vets and
owners will be keen to produce certificates, to escape that
liability.
On the
question about rubber bands, Opposition Members, including the hon.
Member for Scarborough and Whitby, are right to say that the discretion
to use a sharp instrument or rubber band will—I have moved on
from the docking of dogs’ tails, by the way, to the tail docking
of other animals as well—allow the use of rubber bands, because
we are aware of no evidence that the use of a band is any less of a
welfare problem than the use of a sharp knife.
There is no specific requirement
to retain a copy of the certificate—a point that I dealt with a
moment or two ago. The guidelines for magistrates are a matter for
magistrates and prosecutors.
On the costs to the police, we
are currently working with the police, local authorities and the RSPCA
on a statement of intent regarding who will enforce the Act. We do not
expect the police to be involved unless there are very serious cases of
offences or public order
matters.
We have not
made microchipping obligatory at the same time as the tail is docked,
because the advice that we have received is that it is not always
possible to microchip animals at such a young
age.
The time limits
on pig tail docking and tooth reduction that are set out in the
regulations are entirely within the directives laid down at European
Union level, and they are the same as the status quo.
I will write to hon. Members
spelling out the timetabling of the rest of the secondary legislation.
We have spelt that out on a number of occasions, but I will do so again
for the hon. Member for Leominster.
The hon. Gentleman also asked
about rubber rings being used up to the age of seven days with no
anaesthetic being required. Under any other method, anaesthetics are
required in cattle and goats over two months old and in sheep over
three months old. By implication, an anaesthetic is therefore not
required under those time limits, although it could be given. That is
an exact replication of the current law under the Protection of Animals
(Anaesthetics) Act
1954.
On the time
scale for castrations, we are keeping the status quo for each species.
Each species is different, and different time scales may be
appropriate. We would seek further evidence before wanting to change
the existing requirements. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is currently
examining sheep castration; we await the
report.
On vets only
being permitted to dock dogs, we would anticipate that they would use a
surgical method and not tail banding. I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
11.5
am
Bill
Wiggin:
The Minister shares my desire to get animal
welfare right, as indeed does the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who
speaks for the Liberal Democrats. The Minister’s explanation in
answer to some of my questions does not do him justice, because I know
that he cares very much. I urge him perhaps to publish some guidelines
for the production of certificates, because there is no great incentive
for people to dock dogs’ tails.
At the moment, large numbers of
dockings are done for cosmetic reasons, because of breed
specifications. For a dog such as a boxer, which is not deemed a
working dog by the regulations, people are docking, so that they can
show the dogs according to the current regulations. That will change,
so I expect that the large majority of dockings will cease. However,
people will be vulnerable to prosecution if, say, they have lost their
certificate. If their house burns down and the docking certificate is
lost in the fire, they will be liable for prosecution. According to the
Minister, it is not in their interest to lose the certificate, because
they would be
liable. Therefore, I would urge him to go away and think very carefully
about a central database, to which vets would send their half of the
certificate, so that DEFRA would have some
record—
Lord
Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr. Dave
Watts):
More civil
servants.
Bill
Wiggin:
Before I get accused of
spending—
[
Interruption
.
]
Bill
Wiggin:
Perhaps the vets could return the certificates.
After the fire, it would be possible for the owner to seek a new
certificate. What we are trying to do is exactly what the Minister
originally said—to enable the legislation. There is a problem
with his explanation, because it does not make clear exactly how the
legislation will be enacted. Equally, there is a problem with the
Minister’s answer on microchipping.
A puppy may be too small to be
microchipped. The microchip is put under the skin and may move in the
fat. If the requirement is for the docked dog to be microchipped, which
is right and something I agree with, we also ought to have some way to
ensure that the person who does the docking is also the person who does
the microchipping. If that is not possible, there should be some way to
ensure that the two do not part company.
Those suggestions are
practical, to prevent dog owners being prosecuted unnecessarily and to
prevent wasting court time and messing people around unnecessarily. I
am sure that the Minister shares that wish, and I am happy with his
answers on the House of Lords
procedure.
Ms
Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): For clarification, could
the hon. Gentleman identify whether there are any puppies smaller than
a
microchip?
Bill
Wiggin:
The hon. Lady has, sadly, expressed her
misunderstanding of microchipping. The microchip goes into the fat
under the skin. As the puppy grows, it is possible for the microchip to
migrate through the body and to cause quite a lot of damage or even to
get lost in some cases, so that the microchip cannot be found when
bleeping the dog to identify it. The whole purpose of the process is
ease of
identification.
I do
not think that there are many puppies smaller than a microchip. I hope
that there are not. I can see all sorts of animal welfare nightmares if
the Government produce microchips larger than a puppy. I am sure
that the hon. Lady is only making a light-hearted
intervention, but she has identified that the problem of microchipping
is serious. I hope that people who find a stray or lost dog would check
for microchipping. That would lead to improved animal welfare and
owners would get their dogs back quicker, which I am sure her
constituents would want. If not dealt with properly, the dog might be
deemed to be illegal and automatically put down, which would be a great
shame.
I hope the
Minister will go away and think carefully about our reservations. They
are not about major problems, but minor details that will enable
his
legislation, which I know he is very proud of, to be enacted speedily
and effectively. That is why we have taken part and been supportive. We
believe that there is a great deal of good in the Animal Welfare Act
2006, but we want to see the detail ironed out, so that people are not
unnecessarily
prosecuted.
Question
put:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
1.
Division
No.
1
]
Question accordingly agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Docking of Working Dogs’
Tails (England) Regulations
2007.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Mutilations (Permitted
Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.—[Mr.
Bradshaw.]
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Welfare of Animals
(Miscellaneous Revocations) (England) Regulations
2007.—[Mr.
Bradshaw.]
Committee
rose at twelve minutes past Eleven
o’clock.
