Because these repeals are not intended to commence two months after Royal Assent, but instead not until April 2016, when the microchipping provisions come in, the Government have decided to consult key stakeholders on this issue, as I indicated on the previous amendment. If there is enough evidence to support retaining the requirement for licensed dog breeders to identify any dogs sold to pet shops or Scottish rearing establishments with a tag or badge, it would not be our intention to commence the repeal contained in

18 Nov 2014 : Column GC157

paragraph 37 of Schedule 20. Paragraph 37 is also omitted from the more general commencement with regard to Schedule 20.

I have no doubt—indeed of course the noble Lord has mentioned it—that points can be made during that consultation about, as he indicated, the gap in time between microchipping becoming a requirement and seeing how it works in practice. Obviously, it will also be an opportunity to have proper scrutiny of the microchipping regulations, which I think he referred to in his earlier amendment.

Again, I just repeat that there will be a consultation and the responses to that consultation will be weighed up with regard to the very specific point about the tagging badges when licensed dog breeders pass on dogs to pet shops or Scottish rearing establishments. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Grantchester: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that dogs will still be required to wear an identity tag and that a lot of the concerns on that score can be laid to rest. I am grateful that he has further clarified, under this amendment, that consultation is proceeding with necessary stakeholders on the introduction of these provisions. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 92B withdrawn.

Debate on whether Schedule 20, as amended, should be agreed.

Lord Rooker: I have one last, general question on this, which comes as a result of listening to these last two debates. Can the Minister give a commitment

18 Nov 2014 : Column GC158

that the Government will not bring any new material forward for Schedule 20 at further stages of the Bill?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As I am not the Minister in charge of the Bill, I am not sure I can give that commitment and am wary of doing it, having just invited the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, perhaps to suggest candidates—although I did qualify that invitation by saying that he should give plenty of time so they could be properly looked at and considered.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I can say that it is not our intention. We will take the warning.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am advised that it is not the Government’s intention to bring forward further pieces of legislation into this. We take heed of the warning that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has very effectively delivered.

Lord Rooker: It is not a warning; it is just the fact that it is quite clear that people inside the government machine—I do not blame them—are now looking at what is going to be changing in the future that will make legislation redundant before the action takes place. This is a very suitable vehicle for piling other stuff in, which is clearly the implication of what we have just heard about dog chipping. It is something that is coming in the future that will require this change—here is a nice vehicle. I just wonder what else is around. It would be very unwise from a parliamentary scrutiny point of view.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord’s point is well understood.

Schedule 20, as amended, agreed.

Committee adjourned at 6.38 pm.