Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I accept that a problem will inevitably occur if exceptions are made. The House has decided to make an exception to allow some tail docking so a definitional problem must automatically follow.
I normally agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his analysis of such matters, but in this case it depends on the regulations. Flexibility for veterinary surgeons could be built into the regulations—indeed, it would be extraordinary if it were not—so we should wait until they are published before making a judgment. However, although I agree that it is important that such matters are as clear as possible, it is also important that we do not end up with bad law, such that a vet could regard an animal as a working dog but would not be allowed to make that judgment due to the drafting of the regulations. In a sense, this discussion is about what the regulations might say, and the Minister and his officials will no doubt take it into account when they are drafted.
I should like to respond to the Minister’s opening remarks. He has dealt with the Bill in a welcome manner, and the measure is better for the open response that he and his officials showed.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 6 November 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
451 c601 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:39:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358171
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358171
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358171