Animal Welfare Bill

The purpose of the first part of our deliberations this afternoon is to facilitate a debate and then, if the House desires, votes on the docking of dogs’ tails. When we published the Bill, the Government said that we would not seek to be a persuader on such a contentious issue, where views on both sides are strongly held and the evidence disputed. We said that we would listen to Members’ views. In Committee, the majority of Members who spoke advocated a total ban on the docking of dogs’ tails. Some Members said that they would prefer an exemption for working dogs and no Member who spoke supported the status quo of allowing cosmetic docking. However, all members of the Committee, whatever their views, said that they felt that the issue should be opened up more widely to all Members. That is what we are doing now. We are offering the House three options—first, a ban on tail docking, but with an exemption for working dogs; secondly, a ban with no exemption for working dogs; and thirdly, the status quo, which allows cosmetic docking. Of course, it will remain possible under all those options for a vet to dock a dog’s tail if that is necessary for medical reasons—for example, because the tail is damaged or has become diseased. Members who wish to support option one—a ban, with an exemption for working dogs—should vote for new clause 8, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and against amendments (a) to (f), which stand in my name. Members who want a total ban should vote for the new clause and those amendments. Members who wish to retain the status quo should vote against the new clause. I wish to make it clear that I support an exemption for working dogs. I appreciate that that puts me in the somewhat unusual position of not voting for my own amendments. Amendments (a) to (f), which stand in my name, are intended to facilitate the deliberations of the House. I do not intend to repeat the long arguments that were aired in Committee, so that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate. No doubt, Members will have been lobbied both for and against a working dogs exemption. However, to help the debate, I wish to say something about how the new clause banning docking, with a working dogs exemption, would work. One of the main concerns expressed in Committee by those hon. Members whose minds were not already made up was that any exemption for working dogs should be workable and enforceable. The Government agreed, and we have endeavoured to achieve that in the new clause. Under the new clause, only a vet could preventively dock a dog’s tail provided that, first, the dog is no more than five days old, and secondly, the vet has been shown specific evidence that the dog is likely to be used for work in connection with law enforcement, the armed forces, emergency rescue, pest control or the lawful shooting of animals.