It is pretty obvious that if a dog has not got a tail, it is not going to injure it. I would ban all amputation of dogs’ tails. We could look at the question of working dogs and if there was a large increase in tail injuries, we could perhaps introduce secondary legislation to change the law. However, that is not what we are talking about. I do not know about other Members, but until I received from the Dogs Trust a photograph of a very handsome boxer with a tail—I have it in my hand—I had not seen a boxer with a tail. Boxers are not working dogs. This is what we should be working toward.
I do not wish to say any more. I thanked the Minister when he came to do the APGAW reception for his command of his brief. I said then that it is a good Bill, which it is, but that it will be made better by amendment, and I still believe that.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Eric Martlew
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c185 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:35:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289612
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289612
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289612