Animal Welfare Bill — New Clause "8" — Docking of dogs' tails — 14 Mar 2006 at 19:15
Those voting Aye inserted a new clause into the Animal Welfare Bill, which said:
A person commits an offence if... he removes [or causes the removal of] the whole or any part of a dog's tail, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment... [unless] the dog is a certified working dog that is not more than 5 days old.
A person commits an offence if he shows a dog at an event to which members of the public are admitted on payment of a fee,... [and] the dog's tail has been wholly or partly removed... on or after the commencement day, [unless it is a working dog]
This amendment inserted into the Bill a ban on the tail docking of dogs' tails for cosmetic purposes. A further vote, to ban tail docking of working dogs, was rejected in Division 188.
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 108 | 55 (+2 tell) | 0 | 84.2% |
| DUP | 5 | 1 | 0 | 66.7% |
| Independent | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Lab | 302 (+2 tell) | 5 | 0 | 87.5% |
| LDem | 55 | 2 | 0 | 90.5% |
| PC | 2 | 0 | 0 | 66.7% |
| SNP | 2 | 0 | 0 | 33.3% |
| UUP | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 476 | 63 | 0 | 85.8% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote