| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Drew: That is the crux of the problem. Tail docking is not taught in veterinary schools any more, and the vast majority of vets do not want to do it. Those who do it are an ageing part of the profession. Surely it is almost inevitable that tail docking will die out. It is just that the law will follow that. Is that not a problem?
Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing that that is the nub of the problem. If he is right and tail docking dies out—personally, as I said earlier, I do not favour the look of a docked tail—that is how I would prefer things to proceed. Docking would die out because people did not want to do it, rather than because we legislated for that in the Bill.
Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): Is it not the case that a great many veterinary surgeons today specialise purely in companion animals and small animal care, and that there are fewer vets who serve rural areas, including farm practices, and cover the sort of working dogs that we are talking about? That is why the views of the professional bodies are not necessarily representative of the minority who are specialists in rural areas.
Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and is absolutely right. We should not make decisions based on the number of vets available to carry out the procedure. People who own dogs have to deal with the issue for themselves. I do not like bans and I do not think that there is a need for a ban. Bans are bad for everybody. They lead to illegal activity, and when all is said and done, my suspicion is that people who prefer docked breeds will selectively breed bob-tailed dogs, which will make the enforcement of the law on tail docking extremely difficult.
I have seen the campaigns showing dead puppies, and I think that they are revolting. One says:
That campaigning is unhelpful. It is based on illegal docking, which will remain illegal whatever we choose to do today, and on spin rather than fact. It does not do the issue any favours.
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1341
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): My hon. Friend is speaking with a great deal of knowledge and a lot of experience, and most eloquently. I share his view about the photographs. Most of them were of illegal tail dockings, yet they purported to show what was happening across the board legitimately and normally. Many people would have presumed that those dockings had been carried out by vets.
Bill Wiggin: I urge my hon. Friend not to be too modest with his praise for me; I am most grateful for it. What he says is right—and I have had some fairly unpleasant criticism from the Council of Docked Breeds, which actually agrees with me on this matter. The subject is emotive, and we should allow dog owners to make up their minds themselves.
6 pm
There is a temptation to vote in favour of new clause 8 because it contains an exemption for working dogs. The exemption is prudent and sensible, but I will be forced to vote against the measure because I prefer the status quo. I have changed my position slightly since the Committee stage. I have been persuaded by the volume of bureaucracy, paperwork and certificates—and sheer difficulty—that the measure would introduce.
Owners should decide which dogs need to be docked. There is a compelling argument for pre-prophylactic docking based on evidence that damage will be done later in life. The comments of the security services are also most helpful. As the Minister said, show standards are the area on which progress could be made. For example, a non-docked dog should be at no disadvantage compared with a docked dog unless the tail has a fault. There is an incentive for show dogs to be docked if there is a fault with the tail, so the anti-docking campaign should focus its attention on that.
There will be an entirely free vote on both sides of the House. Paragraph 15 of the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, which was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), states that the Government's preference is
Reluctantly, I will not support new clause 8, on the basis that I do not like banning things, paperwork or bureaucracy. I do not like cosmetic docking either, but we should make the matter a free choice for all dog owners, rather than using the Bill to determine what should happen.
Shona McIsaac: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate. I will focus on the reasons why I believe that the only workable and practical way forward is to have a complete prohibition on tail docking with no exemptions for so-called working dogs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said earlier, it is important to understand the history of tail docking and the reason why it became a common practice for certain breeds in this country. He rightly said that a tax was levied on the owners of working dogs. Farmers, drovers and other owners of working dogs began to dock, or shorten, their dogs' tails so that they could avoid the tax. The tax was repealed in 1796, but people who were
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1342
worried that it might be reintroduced continued the practice of tail docking. Prior to the tax, working dogs were not docked. The practice dated only from when the tax was brought in.
It is important to appreciate what tail docking actually is. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons describes the practice as a mutilation, and defines a mutilation as
"all procedures carried out with or without instruments which involve interference with sensitive tissues or the bone structures of an animal and are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons."
It is right and appropriate to describe docking as a mutilation.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) rose—
Shona McIsaac: I am happy to take interventions, but I would appreciate it if I could make a wee bit of progress first.
The process of docking involves cutting through—often by tying—bones, cartilage, muscle and nerves. It is done without anaesthetic on puppies under a week old and no analgesic relief is given after the procedure has been carried out. There is no justification for allowing the practice to continue.
People who support the exemptions for working dogs argue that because puppies are neonatal they do not feel any pain, but that is completely untrue. Scientific evidence demonstrates that the nervous system of neonatal puppies allows them to experience pain; they just experience it slightly more slowly than adult dogs. It would not be appropriate for hon. Members to argue that puppies do not feel pain, because they certainly do.
Angela Browning: I have been persuaded by the Minister on new clause 8. When considering the surgical procedure for tail docking, has the hon. Lady thought about other procedures in which the veterinary profession is involved? For example, I was present with a vet while a horse was being castrated and the procedure was pretty barbaric. Is she suggesting that there should be no more castration of stallions?
Shona McIsaac: I must admit that when I was preparing the notes for my speech, my mind had not actually wandered on to the subject of the castration of horses. The Bill allows such practices to continue. The practice would not be regarded as a mutilation under the veterinary profession's definition, even though the hon. Lady regards it as quite barbaric.
Lembit Öpik: I was going to make a rather similar point to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning). The vets' definition of mutilation that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) cited mentioned an attack on sensitive tissues for non-therapeutic purposes. Neutering a dog would fulfil the definition because that is obviously done for non-therapeutic purposes. If she is using the definition as a justification for opposing tail docking, she must, logically speaking, either support an outright ban on the neutering of dogs, or explain why she has different definitions for the two mutilations.
Shona McIsaac:
The definition of a mutilation is not mine. I cited it because it is the veterinary profession's
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1343
description of the practice of tail docking. As I said earlier, neutering is not covered by the Bill, as we determined in Committee, so the procedure may continue after the Bill has been passed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |