Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rooker (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Animal Welfare Bill.


Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 3, at end insert ““, that the first and second conditions mentioned below are met. (4A) The first condition referred to in subsection (4) is that there has been produced to the veterinary surgeon such evidence as the appropriate national authority may by regulations require for the purpose of showing”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. A considerable amount of time has been spent—long before I joined the department—discussing the docking of dogs’ tails. The Government’s amendments are in response to the amendment tabled in Grand Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, prompted by concerns raised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The RCVS was worried that a vet could be accountable if they had been misled into docking a dog illegally, and that assessing whether a dog was ““likely to work”” from evidence provided was not within their professional expertise and training. Rather than having to certify that, in his opinion, a dog is likely to work, the amendments will allow a vet to certify that he has seen the evidence required by regulations to demonstrate that the dog is likely to work. On that basis, I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c998 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Animal housing Animal welfare Codes of practice Abuse Birds Appeals Cattle Circuses Licensing Inspections Dogs Greyhound racing Domestic animals Game Powers of entry Livestock Pets Registration Standards Sales Sheep Zoos RSPCA Veterinary services State Veterinary Service Prizes Greyhounds Goldfish
Legislation
Animal Welfare Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk