Skip to main content

1-20 of 814 results for subject:Dogs

Session X
2005-06

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Whether, in view of the number of studies that have already been undertaken, they have made an assessment of the extent to which the further testing of electric shock collars on dogs is ethical.

Asked by
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
8 November 2006
Reference
8061; 686 c161WA
House
House of Lords

Whether they have made an assessment of the quality of the study on electric shock collars by Matthijs B H Schilder and Joanne A M van der Borg; if so, what is that assessment; and whether further research on electric shock collars is necessary.

Asked by
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
8 November 2006
Reference
8027; 686 c160-1WA
House
House of Lords

Whether they have made an assessment of the relevance of the effects of electric shock stimulion mice and rats to determining the welfare implications for electric shock collars worn around the neck of a dog.

Asked by
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
8 November 2006
Reference
8062; 686 c161WA
House
House of Lords

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential impact of EC Council Regulations 1/2005 on (a) exhibitors and visitors to dog shows and trials and (b) dog breeders; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by
Tony Baldry (Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c708W; 98187
House
House of Commons

These are technical amendments to ensure consistency with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c617
House
House of Commons

Lords amendment No. 66 deals with: "““Functions in connection with entry under section 19””." It set out powers including the power to"““inspect an animal found on the premises””," the power to"““remove a carcass””" and the power to"““take a photograph of anything on the premises.””" However, I do not see a...

Member
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c618
House
House of Commons

Under Lords amendment No. 64, a warrant may authorise persons to accompany an inspector. Will the Minister clarify whether the warrant will have to specify the names of such people? Will he also clarify whether a person accompanying an inspector will need to identify himself, as the inspector will have...

Member
Bill Wiggin (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c617-8
House
House of Commons

I thought perhaps that if the Minister gave way to me, his brain might catch up with him—and it has.

Member
Ann Widdecombe (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c617
House
House of Commons

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will be able to help me.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c617
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c617
House
House of Commons

With leave of the House, I should like to respond first to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I am afraid that I cannot confirm whether a person will need to be named in the circumstances that he outlined. However, under paragraph 3, the warrant holder will have to...

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c618-9
House
House of Commons

I am pleased with inclusion of the provision whereby a person may appeal an order of a magistrates court and be reimbursed of expenses incurred, but I have a few questions for the Minister. Why are the Government using amendments Nos. 26 and 47 to change the term ““costs”” to...

Member
Bill Wiggin (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c615
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c614
House
House of Commons

I am afraid that I cannot provide that clarification at this stage, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23 agreed to.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c615
House
House of Commons

I think that it might be helpful to the House if Members do not pronounce the ““o”” in ““Leominster””. For the purposes of this Bill, I will forgive them if they make it rhyme with ““hamster””. I welcome the inclusion of measures to deal with appeals through the Crown Court....

Member
Bill Wiggin (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c614-5
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c615
House
House of Commons

This seems to clarify the issues of devolution. Will the Minister tell us what effort the devolved Administrations are putting into drawing up their own welfare codes, and whether their codes will simply be improved versions of our own? Of course they might run things differently—that is the nature of...

Member
Bill Wiggin (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c616-7
House
House of Commons

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him on those matters. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33 agreed to.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c615
House
House of Commons

Can the Minister clarify whether someone who has been cruel and is disqualified from keeping one species can be disqualified from keeping others? It would be absurd if someone who had been barred from keeping dogs still had other animals in their possession and care. I was particularly worried by...

Member
Bill Wiggin (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c616
House
House of Commons

The amendments are necessary in order to apply the same powers to breaches of disqualification orders made under old or new legislation. The group includes four minor amendments that were necessary in order to correct references contained in the Bill.

Member
Ben Bradshaw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c616
House
House of Commons