| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The GLA is delivering improved services for London. Noble Lords do not have to take my word for it; they might be happier taking the word of the Audit Commission. In its audit and inspection letter for 2005-06, it found that the GLA is making good progress and performing well on the use of resources. It said:
“The past year has been one of considerable progress against the Mayor’s priorities. Establishing the London Climate Change Agency is a key step towards tackling climate change, the Mayor’s biggest single priority. Crime is at a five-year low. Local policing is now a reality in every ward in London. Investment in public transport is at its highest for sixty years”.
All those noble Lords who had a role in the passage of the GLA Bill in 1999 should congratulate themselves on having created such a wonderful body for London. It is delivering for Londoners, but we do not want to stop there. It is certainly not about reducing or knocking the powers of the boroughs. We need to take more of a regional perspective, especially in the areas identified in the Bill: housing, planning and waste management. We need to up the pace and bring drive and energy, particularly to housing and affordable housing, and to make sure that we have the right infrastructure.
This Bill is good for London, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.
Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007
10.09 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the lateness of the hour is self-evident, and I apologise in advance for the length of my speech. I shall deal with the three regulations in one speech and will move the other two Motions later. I do so having had the benefit of the start of the debate in Grand Committee and subsequent discussions with noble Lords and colleagues. People can obviously make their speeches—I am not trying to stop that, and clearly cannot anyway—but I hope that I will give most of the answers to the issues and doubts raised, as
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1749
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 consolidate existing legislation relating to the mutilation of animals. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibits all mutilation of animals other than for the purpose of medical treatment, but subject to any exceptions as may be specified in regulations, and it is the latter permission that the Government are exercising here. It is commonly agreed that certain mutilations are necessary for an animal’s long-term welfare, whether for reproduction control or better management. In addition, some forms of mutilation—for example, ear-tagging of certain animals for identification purposes—are required by law. The procedures to be permitted are set out in Schedule 1, with the conditions on how they may be performed or who may perform them in Schedules 2 to 9.
In deciding which mutilations should be permitted and the conditions attached to their use, we have largely repeated those permitted under existing legislation but also consulted widely on other procedures that should or should not be allowed. The status quo has been replicated in most cases. However, unlike present legislation, where certain procedures are banned, the Act and these regulations together ban any mutilation not specifically permitted. This means that outdated and unacceptable practices not specifically outlawed or subject to regulation will now be banned. We identified 20 practices not subject to legislation but which are no longer generally considered justifiable on animal welfare grounds, and those will no longer be permitted. They include devoicing cockerels and the ear-cropping of dogs.
The mutilations regulations are accompanied by the Welfare of Animals (Miscellaneous Revocations) (England) Regulations 2007, which revoke current legislative provisions relating to certain mutilations of farmed animals which are now replaced by the mutilations regulations.
The Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007, which will concern us most, supply the necessary mechanisms by which the principle of a ban on tail-docking of dogs, with limited exemptions, may have effect. In March last year, there was a very thorough debate on the issue in the other place, and all the main parties allowed Members of Parliament a free vote. I add that the regulations passed through the other place earlier today. With the commencement of Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act, and subject to the approval of these regulations by your Lordships' House, the docking of dogs’ tails for cosmetic purposes will now be banned. It will be easy to see that as the shows come around the country, whether they be the big ones such as Crufts or others; it will be self-evident.
The exemption for working dogs allows a dog that is likely to be used for certain specified types of work to have its tail docked by a veterinary surgeon. The dog will have to be not more than five days’ old when the docking is performed, and the veterinary surgeon will have to certify that he or she has seen
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1750
Many of my noble friends have concerns about the exemption for working dogs. We are all of the same mind—hence the nature of the debate in the other place—that it is crucial to ensure that only dogs that are genuinely likely to work have their tails docked. We are confident that these regulations close any potential loopholes.
Regulation 3 outlines the evidence that the vet must see in order to certify the dog as a working dog. The vet must reasonably believe that the dog is not more than five days old and he or she must see the dam of the dog. In addition, another piece of specific documentary evidence relating to the work that the dog is intended for must be shown to the vet by the person presenting the dog.
At five days old or less, the dog will self-evidently not be a working dog; therefore, we can require only that there is evidence of a genuine intention that the dog will work or be likely to work. It is possible that a dog that is legally docked will not go on to work—because it is not of the right temperament, for example. However, the requirement that documentary evidence be shown and that the owner make a declaration that the dog is intended for work—a false declaration is an offence—is a rigorous yet proportionate way of establishing a genuine intention that the dog will work.
Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 provide that the dog can be only of a certain type; namely, a spaniel, a terrier, or a hunt point retrieve breed. The inclusion of the types of dog as groups rather than breeds does not mean that the Government anticipate that King Charles spaniels or Yorkshire terriers will be seen out retrieving game or sniffing for explosives. We are aware that some breeds within those types rarely, if ever, work. However, there were a number of reasons for including spaniels, terriers and hunt point retrieve breeds as groups, one of which was the recognition that a considerable number of cross-breeds, particularly in the terrier group, make very effective working dogs.
In addition, we rejected including a requirement that a dog should be a 100 per cent pure-bred example of a specific breed. It would be difficult to be certain of that fact without, for example, DNA evidence or the production of detailed kennel-book pedigrees. Working dogs are more likely to have been reared for their working abilities than for the purity of their pedigree or their cosmetic perfection as to breed conformation. Rather, we opted for attribution to type on the basis of the identity of the dam; so, for example, a terrier for the purpose of these regulations is the puppy of a dam that can herself be described as a terrier.
I reiterate that these regulations will absolutely not increase the number or type of dogs whose tails are
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1751
It is worth reiterating that a dog cannot have its tail docked unless it meets all the requirements in the regulations. It must be five days old or less, be accompanied by the documentary evidence and one of the specified types, which will be shown by the presentation of the dam.
Regulation 4 describes how a docked dog must subsequently be identified. This must be done by microchip before the dog is three months old. That stems from the requirement in Section 6(8)(b) of the primary Act that the dog be identified before three months of age. We expect that in most cases docking and microchipping will be done at the same time. However, at the time of drafting Section 6 of the Act, we received representation from some vets and animal welfare groups concerned that, given the size of a puppy at less than five days old, it may not always be appropriate to microchip at that time. Therefore, it was felt best to leave this to the discretion of the vet and to enable him or her to microchip later if it was felt more appropriate to do so. Microchipping is a known and effective identification tool and is already compulsory for dogs with pet passports.
In a small number of cases, a vet who has not docked the dog’s tail may be asked to carry out the microchipping. In this case, the vet will also be asked to sign the certificate, which will have been signed by the docking vet at the time of docking. If the second vet has any concerns about the identity of the dog being presented for microchipping, he or she can check with the previous vet or their practice, whose contact details and signature will be on the certificate. If any worries remain, the vet does not have to microchip the dog; it is discretionary.
Concerns have been raised about how the legislation will be enforced. This has been the subject of much informal discussion between noble Lords and officials in the department and between officials and other groups. We believe that we have struck the correct balance in a system for enforcement which is both strong and proportionate. The compulsory certificate, which a legally docked dog will have throughout its life and which will change hands when the owner changes, will be the primary enforcement tool.
Concerns have been raised about the absence of a specific offence of refusing to produce a certificate to an authorised person to prove that the docking has been done legally. We did not see the need for this offence, as the reasonable assumption was made that anyone accused of one of the tail-docking offences would voluntarily produce the certificate where this would exculpate him or her. Nevertheless, should they be necessary, there are wider enforcement powers in
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1752
Tail-docking continues to be a contentious issue, partly because of the anecdotal nature of much of the evidence surrounding docking and tail injury. We understand that discussions are under way at the Royal Veterinary College about a potential study comparing the working dog exemption in England and Wales with the total ban in Scotland. The Government welcome any scientific evidence in this area and will be interested to see the results of this work.
I very much hope that the House will approve the regulations. Obviously, the consequences of not approving them are that the docking of dogs’ tails for cosmetic purposes will continue, and I do not think that anyone wants that. The regulations represent an effective and proportionate approach to fleshing out the principle agreed by the other place last year. To reject them now would mean that Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act would not come into force on 6 April, and docking for cosmetic purposes would be permitted to continue.
I apologise for the length of my speech but I hope that I have covered many of the issues that have concerned noble Lords. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved. 9th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare my interests as an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his extended explanation of the Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007, as, indeed, I am to him for arranging, a fortnight ago, for noble Lords interested in the regulations to meet him and his officials in an attempt to clarify the intentions behind them.
The noble Lord has a copy of the briefing that I asked for from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, so I do not intend to take up the time of the House by repeating what he already knows. The RSPCA has also asked me to express its ongoing reservations and disappointment that its continued pressure on the issue of enforcement has failed to elicit a satisfactory solution from Defra. The RSPCA stresses that, for it, the key issue is enforcement and the need for effectiveness and efficiency. It does not want to lose the important prohibition of docking for cosmetic reasons. The society maintains that, with the exemption, the regulations as drafted will be very difficult to enforce and that the suggestion that it will
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1753
It has been said many times before, by me and by others, that a respected law is one that is reasonable, clear and enforceable. Unfortunately, the regulations do not meet the last two qualities. A number of the organisations that responded to consultation documents—the RCVS and the RSPCA among them— have expressed their regret that Defra officials seem to have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to many of the submissions that they made about amendments that they believe would have clarified the position for veterinary surgeons, dog owners and enforcers.
It is not my intention to delay any further the introduction of this very important addition to the animal welfare armoury. I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to make the few amendments that I believe would make the regulations stronger. I do, however, ask the Minister whether he feels able to offer his assurance that the regulations will be—not may be—reviewed after a reasonable time—say in two years’ time—to ensure that they are effective. As well as seeing the royal colleges’ research, would he also consult with his Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh counterparts to compare the effectiveness of their legislation with this?
In the mean time, if my advice were sought by someone considering docking a newborn puppy's tail, whether a vet, a dog owner or a prospective buyer, I would remind him of Mr Punch's advice to those about to marry: “If in doubt, don't”.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation on the mutilation of animals regulations. I declare an interest as someone who keeps sheep. I am interested to see that Regulation 5, on those who may carry out permitted procedures, states that any procedure,
- “may only be carried out by a veterinary surgeon or any other person permitted to carry out that procedure under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 ... or the Veterinary Surgeons (Exemptions) Order 1962”.
I am interested to know whether those exceptions require people to have a certificate from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or whether a qualification in general animal husbandry is considered adequate. As someone who keeps blackface sheep, I am interested in the reference to the mutilation of sheep. The removal of the insensitive tip of a horn is also included. That is a fairly constant problem. Noble Lords are probably aware of the curly horns of the blackface sheep. Very often they grow into the face of the sheep and have to be treated, which can be done by a vet or sometimes by a shepherd.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall be brief. On the docking of working dogs’ tails, the Minister has rightly reminded us that if we do not pass these regulations the status quo will continue. That is what the Government have offered us. Of course, they could have chosen to go down the Scottish route. I was very grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on a previous occasion, for
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1754
To continue the theme of kings, dogs and docking, my noble friend Lord Roper observed that Edward VIII, when Prince of Wales, said that if he could pass only one law, it would be to prevent the docking of puppies’ tails. We are where we are, and we should regard this as a step forward, although I am sorry that the Government have not offered us the Scottish route.
I have three brief questions on mutilations. First, the permitted procedures regulations talk of unhygienic conditions. Does that have a regulatory definition, or will it be up to professional interpretation by vets and farmers. Secondly, the regulations on rubber ringing talk about the procedures having to be undertaken by a veterinary surgeon. Is that practical in the lambing season? There appears to be an exemption for pigs under seven days old but not for other animals. Can the Minister confirm that those exemptions are listed elsewhere? If so, would it not have made sense to consolidate the legislation and include the provisions here?
10.30 pm
On the docking of pigs’ tails, the farmer is required to,
How does the ministry intend to enforce that rule? Presumably it will be up to the veterinary surgeon, who the farmer usually calls in. The view of veterinary surgeons is that this may get in the way of their relationship with the farmer. When the pigs are less than seven days old, who will ensure that the farmer tries other methods to stop tail biting before he resorts to docking? Will this also be down to the vet, even though it is not a veterinary procedure until the animals are older than seven days?
Finally, on page 11, I wonder if a word has been left out. Subcutaneous contraception is talked about as part of a “conservation breeding programme”. I wondered whether it should be a “conservation non-breeding programme”.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I welcome this legislation. As a veterinary surgeon, I have been concerned about mutilations of all animals, including dogs, for a good number of years. The explanation given by the Minister this evening has been most helpful. He has particularly clarified certification of when and how a veterinary surgeon might dock a dog if he is motivated to do so.
I will not bore your Lordships by repeating my previous comments on the docking of dogs’ tails, except to emphasise again that there is no peer-reviewed scientific information independently supporting the view that prophylactic docking is effective in preventing tail damage. I am pleased to note that the Minister has said that there will be a study of it conducted by the Royal Veterinary College, I think with funding from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which may put the issue to sleep at long last and give us the benefit of scientific evidence on the issue.
28 Mar 2007 : Column 1755
A substantial issue of the docking of dogs’ tails which keeps coming up is that of pain. There is now substantial evidence, not with puppy dogs but certainly with other neonates and even animals in utero, that such animals can experience pain when subjected to it. It is interesting that the pain pathways are intact in the neonates, but the down regulation of the pain has not yet developed. It is therefore likely that puppies of up to five days of age experience more pain rather than less, and more than is believed by pro-docking individuals. Hence I am firmly of the opinion that the premise for docking is invalid, that we will know that from the study to be undertaken by the Royal Veterinary College, and that the scientific basis of the absence of pain is unacceptable. If docking is to be performed, it should be done by a veterinary surgeon using a local anaesthetic, because of the evidence of pain upon removal of part of the tail.
My guess is that docking will, in due course, gradually cease to be done. The whole range of mutilations performed on animals—done, it was thought at one time, for the benefit of the animal in one way or another—has gradually lost favour and they are no longer done. There is a substantial list of mutilations that are still done, and we believe that they are done for the health and welfare of the animal.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |