Animal Welfare Bill

Long before my little job swap a fortnight ago, like other noble Lords I had a fairly full postbag on this issue. So I am well aware of the concerns. There were concerned debates and a free vote in the other place. It was a key issue, and a considerable amount of time was spent on it. We have got to the stage where there is a solution in sight. I want to comment briefly on some of the amendments standing in my name, and on Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. I should make it absolutely clear that the amendments I am proposing on behalf of the Government do not in any way deviate from the policy which was agreed in the other place. On the contrary, the proposed amendments are necessary to give full and proper effect to the policy that was described in the other place. They are technical amendments to address an oversight whereby the drafting of the delegated power did not completely allow us to achieve the policy which my honourable friend the Member for Exeter described during the debate in advance of the free vote. So, in effect, to make into reality the issues that Ben Bradshaw committed to and promised, and for which there was a free vote and support, we need these technical amendments. Specifically, he committed to restricting the types of dogs which can be docked to only spaniels, terriers, hunt-point-retrieve breeds and crosses of those dogs. The amendments are necessary to achieve that restriction. We cannot accept Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The intention of the other place was that a dog should only be docked if it is of a specified type and the owner can demonstrate that the dog is likely to work. Amendment No. 18 would remove the second of these tests and allow the cosmetic docking of dogs where there was no intention whatever that they would work. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, seeks to overturn the decision of the other place. I appreciate the attempts of both noble Lords to remove the words ““likely to work”” from the clause and I know that the royal college has some reservations about it. However, the intention is, and always has been, that a vet would simply make an objective judgment about whether he had seen certain specified evidence. I am pleased that I have been able to share with the Committee the first draft of the regulation we intend to make under the clause. Noble Lords will appreciate from this that we are not asking the vet to make a subjective judgment. He or she will be guided through a very detailed and rigorous tick-box system to arrive at a much more objective assessment of whether or not the dog is likely to work. However, if noble Lords still require the provision, after consideration of the clause and regulation in tandem, I am prepared to accept that the formulation proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby in Amendment No. 20 potentially provides an alternative framework with which to achieve that goal. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord not to press the amendment and to allow the Government to bring forward their own amendment at Report stage which will achieve the same goal. Obviously, we will discuss the amendment with the noble Lord before we bring it forward. On Amendment No. 22, I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons might take disciplinary action against a vet for docking, even if he had done so in line with the requirements of the Act. I believe these concerns are misplaced. We have worked closely with the RCVS on this matter and, while it is no secret that a working dog exemption was not the preferred policy choice of its council, it has no desire to frustrate the will of Parliament, and in particular the elected House. Therefore, Amendment No. 22 does not add anything to the Bill. With regard to Amendment No. 24, the restriction on showing was not included because of any distaste for showing; it was included because experience from other countries suggests that such a restriction may help to make the restriction on docking more effective. Allowing any docked dogs, even those docked legally, to be shown for cosmetic exhibition purposes might create an incentive for people to try to exploit the working dog exemption to get a dog docked for purely cosmetic exhibition reasons. You could see through that. That this is why the other place voted to include this provision in the Bill. Showing to demonstrate working ability, such as field trailing and police dog displays, will not be affected. The kind of exhibitions given by dogs at a game fair to show their speed and so on proves that they are working dogs and that they are not being shown for exhibition and cosmetic purposes. Given the voices here and the point I have made in respect of Amendment No. 20, it may be that Parliament has a practical consensus on which we can go forward. I hope that the issue of tourism will be dealt with by Report stage. I do not seem to have an answer on that and I do not know what the situation is in Scotland. I was asked a question about tourism but it was not specific as to a country. I am not aware of the Scottish legislation but I will get it in writing before we meet again tomorrow. Dog owners will still be able to get their dogs docked in other EU countries where it is still allowed, which I understand includes the Republic of Ireland. So there is an issue there. As to Scotland, I am unaware of what the legislative proposals will be covered there. I believe I am going to get an answer now.