---

Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): The Minister has made my point for me. Working dogs are used for far more than shooting, and there are police, rescue and customs dogs. The police are the only body that has provided any real evidence, and they have come out very strongly in favour of an exemption for their working dogs.

Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend may have received a letter from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Vaughan, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers working dogs representative. Peter Vaughan has worked in the field for many years, and he has appealed to the House to support new clause 8, because it is common for working dogs to sustain serious injuries that require surgery if their tails are not docked.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con) rose—

Mr. Bradshaw: I give way to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone).

Mr. Hollobone: Has the Minister considered the case of the old English sheepdog, which used to be a working dog? Many old English sheepdog owners prefer to dock their dogs for reasons of hygiene. Has he dismissed heavy-coated breeds, which are at risk of perennial fouling and which will be caught by the new legislation?

Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. The new clause does not include such breeds. The best answer to that problem is to clean the dog.

Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for eventually giving way. I am a complete novice in this matter and want to focus on certification, about which the veterinary profession has some concerns. Will he detail how we can be certain that dogs as young as four or five days will be working dogs?

Mr. Bradshaw: As I have said, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, which is why I am sure that some hon. Members will not be satisfied even by the tightly drawn exemption that we have devised. Given the extra safeguards that we have introduced—the provisions on showing are unprecedented in animal welfare legislation—we will achieve a lot more than countries such as Sweden, which has a total ban.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): Does the Minister recognise the difference between carefully formulated scientific evidence and the experience of police officers, which is valid but anecdotal? Will he
 
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1338
 
explain why he thinks that the veterinary associations that support a ban on docking working dogs take a different view from the police? Does he believe that it is right, at least in the first instance, to trust the view of medical and scientific experts, rather than the anecdotal experience of people who currently work with working dogs?

Mr. Bradshaw: It has long been the view of the majority of the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to oppose all tail docking, but, at the same time, there have been vets who have been prepared to carry it out. It is important that hon. Members listen to the views of people from all organisations—be they vets, police or people who have intimate working knowledge of dogs—and make up their own minds. I am not trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman of my view; I am simply trying to give him and other hon. Members options so that they can reach a view and express it in the way that they vote this evening.

Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): I was interested in what my hon. Friend said about the police. I understand that the police have something like 2,000 or 2,500 working dogs. Will he tell the House what percentage of those working dogs sustained an injury so severe that it necessitated amputation of their tail?

Mr. Bradshaw: It may help if I quote from the letter dated 9 March that I received from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Vaughan, who said:

"Twenty working dogs have had to have their tails docked as a result of injury in the last two years."

He goes on to say:

"Experience over many years of working with police dogs has shown us that certain dog types, performing certain roles; usually a search function where dogs are often required to work in difficult terrain and confined spaces are susceptible to causing injury to their tails. Any docking of new puppies is restricted to such dog types and conducted in order to minimise the risk of such injury, which can be particularly distressing and require a protracted period of recuperation."

I cannot do any more than quote from a third party.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): If we are talking about scientific evidence, surely the Minister should tell the House what proportion of working dogs, or indeed police dogs, that represented. The control would be the proportion of tail docking that took place in the non-working dog population, among breeds that tend to have their tails docked, although that has been shaped by fashion. Tail docking used to be a tax avoidance device. In the 18th century, it was introduced to avoid the tax that had been imposed on certain types of working dog.

Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend will have to forgive me, but I do not know what proportion of working dogs Assistant Chief Constable Vaughan is talking about. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber a little earlier when I gave the overall figures, but I repeat that, even with the exemption, at least 80 per cent. of current dockings would be illegal. The cosmetic dockings that I think most hon. Members want to consign to the history books would not happen.
 
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1339
 

Mr. Paice : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bradshaw: I will give way a final time, because this is turning into a debate.

Mr. Paice: Forgive me, but I think that this is a debate. However, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm my impression from the figures in the letter from the police that it would be a mistake to compare the 20 working police dogs that have had to have therapeutic docking in the past two years with the total number of 2,500? The vast majority of the 2,500 working police dogs will not be of a type that works in confined spaces. They will be Alsatians and Labradors that are used for other purposes. A much smaller proportion—spaniels, predominantly—would be used in those circumstances and so might be at risk. It is not a direct comparison to talk about 20 out of 2,500.

Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I hope that he will forgive me—I was not trying to say that we are not having a debate. There have been a series of interventions. There are hon. Members who have come here to make a considered contribution and I want to allow them time to do that.

Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bradshaw: This really is the final time that I will give way and then I will conclude.

Mr. McGovern: I understand that a ban already exists in Scotland. If the same does not apply in England, it will lead to tail-docking tourism, whereby Scottish people bring their dogs down to Carlisle, get their tails docked and then go back up to Scotland with them. Is that a scenario that the Minister has considered?

Mr. Bradshaw: The Scots have not yet legislated on the matter, but, in theory, my hon. Friend is right and that would be one of the consequences of the devolution that I imagine he and the rest of us supported.

In conclusion, the House has three options. Those who favour the status quo and the flexibility afforded by the delegated power in clause 5 should oppose the Second Reading of the new clause. Those who want a ban on cosmetic docking, but with an exemption for working dogs, should vote for the new clause tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If the new clause is given a Second Reading by the House, those who wish to go further and ban all tail docking should vote for the amendments that stand in my name. However, those who are persuaded by the arguments in favour of a working dog exemption should vote against those amendments.

Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): First, let me welcome the attack of common sense that the Government seem to have had since the Bill was in Committee. Perhaps it was a rush of blood to the Minister's head that caused him to abandon the status quo, for which he had the blessing of the Secretary of State, take the temperature of the Committee and conclude that a total ban on docking was needed. I welcome the change that has happened since.
 
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1340
 

We all agree that what is needed is a cool head and a measured approach. At all stages, we must bear in mind that any sort of docking is illegal unless it is carried out by a qualified vet. The next step is to decide whether the procedure is necessary and whether it hurts. The evidence is overabundant, because everyone has an opinion. I am sure that it probably can hurt, but usually does not and that it is sometimes necessary, but it is not a feature that I personally find attractive in a dog. I am left to make a decision based on the overwhelming area of agreement, which is that the vet who performs the operation must do it properly and legally. If that is the case, I can see no reason why people who are so committed to animal welfare that they take six years to qualify, and end up with enormous student debts, should not be more than able to decide whether they feel comfortable with the operation, and why that should not be enough. That is satisfactory. There is no need for a ban.

---