§ Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 9, leave out ("destroy them, or").
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]
10.17 pm§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)I want to thank the other place and the Government for their role in accepting this amendment. I do not want to delay the House, but this is a serious point. The tragedy is that, because of the way in which earlier proceedings were guillotined, we were not able to discuss this. It would have been wrong for some people who have to have their dogs put down to be able to obtain compansation. There is no doubt that some of them would have been tempted to get hold of the nearest bit of scaffolding and bang the dog over the head. They would then be entitled to compensation. At least the amendment stops that happening and ensures that dogs have to be put down humanely by veterinary surgeons or others so qualified. We are glad to support the amendment.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made that point. This is a good idea and we are happy to accept it simply because we would not wish an owner to destroy a dog by inhumane means and then be able to claim compensation and the cost of the dog's destruction. It would not have been practical to determine in every case whether an owner had destroyed his dog humanely. It seems right that only owners who arrange for a veterinary surgeon or other responsible organisation to put an animal down should be able to claim compensation.
§ Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.