Animal Welfare Bill

I urge my hon. Friend not to be too modest with his praise for me; I am most grateful for it. What he says is right—and I have had some fairly unpleasant criticism from the Council of Docked Breeds, which actually agrees with me on this matter. The subject is emotive, and we should allow dog owners to make up their minds themselves. There is a temptation to vote in favour of new clause 8 because it contains an exemption for working dogs. The exemption is prudent and sensible, but I will be forced to vote against the measure because I prefer the status quo. I have changed my position slightly since the Committee stage. I have been persuaded by the volume of bureaucracy, paperwork and certificates—and sheer difficulty—that the measure would introduce. Owners should decide which dogs need to be docked. There is a compelling argument for pre-prophylactic docking based on evidence that damage will be done later in life. The comments of the security services are also most helpful. As the Minister said, show standards are the area on which progress could be made. For example, a non-docked dog should be at no disadvantage compared with a docked dog unless the tail has a fault. There is an incentive for show dogs to be docked if there is a fault with the tail, so the anti-docking campaign should focus its attention on that. There will be an entirely free vote on both sides of the House. Paragraph 15 of the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment, which was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), states that the Government’s preference is "““that there should continue to be freedom of choice.””" Reluctantly, I will not support new clause 8, on the basis that I do not like banning things, paperwork or bureaucracy. I do not like cosmetic docking either, but we should make the matter a free choice for all dog owners, rather than using the Bill to determine what should happen.