| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I share the distaste for docking and regard it as a mutilation. I had intended to vote for a complete ban until I had an encounter in the Chamber a few hours ago with a docked springer spaniel. When I commented to the dog handler that docking might not be permitted in the future, the handler told me that that beautiful dog had had a full tail, but the tail had had to be docked because while doing its work looking after us in the Chamber, it had undergone serious injury from knocking its tail against the edges of the wooden seats and the Table. Can my hon. Friend convince me that that is only an isolated case? Given the safeguards that the Government intend to put in place, I am inclined to vote for new clause 8, but I put on record the fact that I want to see what the regulations are, so if the matter comes back to the House, I might well change my mind again.
Shona McIsaac: As I continue with my arguments, I hope that my hon. Friend will find that there are compelling reasons why we should vote for a full ban. I will come on to the point about injuries later, so I hope that she will stay in the Chamber to listen to that part of my speech.
Richard Ottaway: The hon. Lady may not have had horse castration in mind when she came to the Chamber, but has she considered the parallels with human circumcision, which, as she will know, is discretionary? Has she considered the fact that if she is successful, animals will have more protection against mutilation than humans?
Shona McIsaac: I did think about the issue of circumcision, because I received what I can only describe as racist and abusive letters from people who wrote to me about my stance on tail docking, having assumed on the basis of my surname that I was Jewish. The hon. Gentleman cannot draw that analogy, because the Bill excludes humans. An amendment that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) tabled in Committee would have included humans, as well as all crustaceans.
Bill Wiggin: I was just sitting here quietly minding my own business—but the hon. Lady's point about crustaceans and cephalopods is valid. If she thinks that pain is the key to her decision, those creatures should be covered by the Bill.
Shona McIsaac: I did have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about cephalopods, but I thought that including them in the Bill would be going too far. However, I do not want to go too far down that road, as we are talking about tail docking.
We have heard about the position of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I want to put on the record the names of the organisations that are supporting a total ban on tail docking. First, we have the Anti-Docking Alliance; it
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1344
might be said that one would expect that of it Then we have the Blue Cross, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the RSPCA, Vets Against Docking, and Wood Green animal shelters. That is a substantial list of people who have to care for animals, and about the welfare of animals, and feel that the time has come to end docking dogs' tails just in case of injury.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems a little strange to use the ACPO evidence, or so-called evidence, to support the amendment, given that the police could dock their dogs at the moment but are not doing so?
Shona McIsaac: Yes. The ACPO material is anecdotal—it is not based on scientific fact and has not been peer reviewed. In fact, most people who want exemptions admit that the supporting evidence is anecdotal.
I want to explain why new clause 8 will not work in practice. The exemption is for working dogs. Before Members vote, they should ask themselves this question: as tail docking is carried out on a neonatal puppy under a week old, how can one tell whether it will be suitable for training as a working dog? I would argue that one cannot tell with any certainty whether any dog will become a working dog. If one has a litter of eight springer spaniels, it is likely that the majority will not be working dogs but kept as pets.
Mr. Bellingham: I should declare an interest. My family have kept springer and cocker spaniels over the years, some of which have had puppies. If one is selling a puppy for quite a lot of money, it will be bought at the higher rate only by someone who is going to use it as a working dog. If one breeds a dog to a very high standard, there is probably a 95 per cent. chance that the entire litter will go into a working role.
6.15 pm
Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but I still do not believe that it answers the question of how one can tell with certainty whether any puppy will be suitable for training as a working dog.
Sweden has a ban on tail docking that it has not reversed since it was introduced. In fact, no country that has introduced such a ban has reversed it having monitored the effects. It has been argued that a study in Sweden demonstrated that injuries went up as a result, but that was not a scientific study. Again, it was anecdotal—and it was a survey by a breeders' group that wanted the ban reversed. The scientific evidence shows that there are injuries to the tails of working dogs, but after any prohibition on tail docking the level of injuries experienced reaches that experienced in the dog population in general. Among any group of dogs, the probability of a non-working dog injuring its tail is similar to that of an undocked working dog doing so. Some Members are shaking their heads; clearly, they do not understand probability.
My main worry about the exemption provision is that it asks vets to certify that a dog is likely to be a working dog. As I said, it is not possible to tell. I, and other
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1345
members of the Standing Committee, received a letter from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the governing body of the veterinary profession, citing the three options mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister:
"the status quo . . . a ban on docking but with an exemption for certain working dogs; and an outright prohibition on docking otherwise than for the purpose of medical treatment."
"recommends the third option: a ban on the docking of dogs' tails except when the operation is carried out for therapeutic purposes."
"We have particular concern with subsection (4) of the new clause. This provides for a veterinary surgeon to certify that a puppy is likely to be used as a working dog. In the College's view it would not be appropriate for a veterinary surgeon to offer such an opinion. Veterinary surgeons are trained to diagnose and treat animals, and their expertise does not extend to assessing the intentions of the current or a future owner of a newborn puppy. It is in any case not possible at that stage to judge whether a particular puppy in a litter will prove suitable for training as a working dog."
That is the stated position of the veterinary profession in this country, and it renders the new clause unworkable. If we claim that the veterinary profession must certify, but it says that it is inappropriate for it to do that, that is a serious problem.
Anne Main (St. Albans) (Con): The hon. Lady is worried about tail docking not having any purpose because it falls within the remit of normal injuries. Has she considered dew claws, which are often a problem on working dogs and are sometimes removed for cosmetic reasons?
Shona McIsaac: Yes, but the debate is about tail docking. The hon. Lady did not serve on the Committee, and those who did realise that I have a propensity to talk at length on such subjects—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members agree with that. I am therefore trying to restrict myself to tail docking, much as I would like to discuss dew claws, too. I shall refrain, despite the hon. Lady's intervention.
Mr. Martlew: Our objection to the new clause is that it will be abused. No dog nowadays should have its tail docked, because since 1993 it has been illegal for anyone but a vet to do that, and the veterinary associations have been against it. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the discussions on the Hunting Act 2004. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and I stood shoulder to shoulder on that but we probably provided too many exemptions, and people have abused the Act. Time and again, police forces tell us that they cannot police it. What chance do we have of policing the Under-Secretary's amendments?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |