The Scots have not yet legislated on the matter, but, in theory, my hon. Friend is right and that would be one of the consequences of the devolution that I imagine he and the rest of us supported.
In conclusion, the House has three options. Those who favour the status quo and the flexibility afforded by the delegated power in clause 5 should oppose the Second Reading of the new clause. Those who want a ban on cosmetic docking, but with an exemption for working dogs, should vote for the new clause tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If the new clause is given a Second Reading by the House, those who wish to go further and ban all tail docking should vote for the amendments that stand in my name. However, those who are persuaded by the arguments in favour of a working dog exemption should vote against those amendments.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ben Bradshaw
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1339 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:46:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307704
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307704
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307704