| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Shona McIsaac:
I agree. The exemptions would create a massive loophole, which the unscrupulous will abuse. The pain and suffering that the Bill is intended to prevent will thus be perpetuated. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said earlier that the number of tail dockings carried out in this country could not physically be done by the number of vets who are willing to undertake them. It is being done illegally, and that is a serious problem, which the Royal College of
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1346
Veterinary Surgeons has identified. Given the nature of some of the people with whom we are dealing, they will exploit any loophole and thus perpetuate pain and suffering.
Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend cited the letter from the president of the RCVS, so it is only fair to say that my officials have worked closely with RCVS officials in drawing up the exemption and the regulation that would implement it. They accept that the way in which we are constructing the regulation would remove the problem that my hon. Friend envisages, because a vet would simply have to certify that the relevant paperwork was present and the type of dog was within the law.
Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but I do not know when he last discussed the matter with the RCVS. It has changed its view, and that is important. Recently—only days ago—its council took a vote to change its position to support an end to prophylactic docking and to say that it was time for a total ban. I received the letter that I read out only a couple of days ago. The position has changed, and I fear that my hon. Friend may be referring to the royal college's position before it changed its policy.
My next point relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about illegality. Vets are not taught how to dock in college nowadays. The Vets Against Docking website reveals that the vast majority of vets refuse to do it and are against docking dogs' tails. The exemptions therefore cause a serious problem and place the veterinary profession in a difficult position.
Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, but I am sure that she is conscious that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Will she confirm that the RCVS will tell its members that they should do whatever the law states? They may have professional views, but they must follow the law as defined by Parliament.
Shona McIsaac: Of course the royal college will follow the law, but it has pointed out to me and other Members of Parliament that it has serious anxieties about the law as it stands. When the law was changed in 1993, vets believed that it would end cosmetic docking. It is exceptional for the royal college, which took a step back from the issue for many years and left the choice up to individual vets, to change its position and state that it is time to end prophylactic docking and that it does not believe that it is appropriate for the profession to certify which dog will become a working dog. It has also stated that one cannot tell whether a puppy will become a working dog.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Shona McIsaac:
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that other hon. Members want to speak—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I could have made a much shorter speech, but I wanted to be generous and give way. I shall not do so again, so that I can conclude my speech and let others take part in the debate.
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1347
Abuse is currently happening. Puppies die and are injured through illegal docking. I therefore believe that a complete ban is the only way to clamp down on illegal docking. The exemptions will create loopholes, which will be exploited and perpetuate the pain and suffering that the Bill is meant to prevent.
I spoke to the RSPCA—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Some Opposition Members groan when I mention the RSPCA. If they tempt me, I could mention many other organisations. However, last year the RSPCA received 205 complaints about docking involving 835 dogs. This is a serious concern, and the Bill is meant to be about the protection of all animals. Unless someone can stand up today and explain how they can tell with absolute certainty whether a two-day-old puppy is going to become a working dog, there can be no excuse for carrying out this mutilation "just in case". The profession is against it, as are the majority of animal welfare organisations, and I urge all hon. Members to support the option for a total ban. We must not leave loopholes that can be exploited.
6.30 pm
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I thank the Minister for the manner in which he has handled this controversial matter, both by enabling a decision to be taken on the Floor of the House—as is right—and through his novel exercise in democracy in Committee when he cajoled from each member of it their view on the matter. On that occasion, not one Member wanted to maintain the status quo of allowing cosmetic docking to continue. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has now apparently decided that he does want it to continue, so I imagine that we will have a vote on that later. I confirm that the Liberal Democrats will have a free vote on this issue; I think that all three parties are in that position.
There needs to be a good reason to mutilate an animal. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) spoke earlier about the neutering of animals, but neutering is carried out for a purpose, and that purpose is not achieved unless that procedure is carried out. That is not necessarily the case with tail docking, because there is doubt as to whether it is necessary. We need to concentrate on that key point.
To be fair to the Minister and his colleagues, the new clause has been drafted quite tightly—that was his stated objective in Committee—and the number of loopholes has been reduced. The idea that it was possible to identify breeds that would never work has been dealt with, as has the idea that breeds could be docked allegedly for one purpose but then shown. The issue remains as to whether an assurance might be given that a dog would be used as a working dog when there was no intention to do so. Notwithstanding the purity of a vet's intentions in those circumstances, they might later be held to have been complicit in a dishonest act because they had given information that turned out to be inaccurate.
Mr. David S. Borrow (South Ribble) (Lab):
What would be the motivation for someone who breeds dogs
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1348
to dock their tails deliberately if there was no intention to use them as working dogs, given that it would then be illegal to use them as show dogs?
Norman Baker: I agree that there would be less motivation. If they were working dogs under the provisions of new clause 8, there would be no problem. If, however, the intention was to show them, there would be no point in docking their tails. Some people might have domestic reasons for wanting to dock their dog's tail; they might wish to have such a dog in their house. There are circumstances in which it would be to someone's advantage to mislead a vet in that way, although I accept that they would be fewer and more constrained than they are at present.
The issues are whether the mutilation of a dog at birth is justified, and, whether or not it is justified, whether the dog suffers as a consequence of the procedure. It is now for others to make their case, as I have had the opportunity to do so at some length in Committee. I would simply say that a dog is born with a tail, so presumably that tail has a purpose. If it did not, it would have been eliminated through genetic manipulation over many generations. Tails assist balance and agility, and they are used to communicate with other dogs. It is questionable, to say the least, whether it is advantageous to dogs to have them removed.
As to whether puppies feel pain, to be fair, the science is not clear on that; there is no clear evidence in that regard as to the consequences of the mutilation. The RCVS has stated:
That is the firm view of the experts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I place more emphasis on what they say than I do on the anecdotal evidence of the police or of others who use dogs in their working capacity.
What are the downsides if tail docking is not performed on working dogs? It is up to those who advocate the mutilation of an animal to make the case that that mutilation is justified. It is not for those of us who believe that mutilation is wrong to make our case. An animal is born as it is born: a dog is born with a tail. Those who wish to remove their tails must justify that decision. I have not heard any such justification so far in the debate—to be fair to the Minister, he tried to be relatively neutral in his introduction—so I shall wait to hear from other hon. Members the justification that such actions are absolutely necessary.
I am happy to accept that some breeds are prone to tail damage if they work in thick cover or confined spaces. I am also happy to accept that, in some circumstances, tail damage in later life can lead to a dog suffering more severe pain, and that a general anaesthetic would be necessary to remove the tail at that time. One could also argue that working dogs were more susceptible to such injury than pet dogs. However, the scale of the incidence of such injury has not been teased out, even by those in favour of tail docking. The 20 examples given by the chief constable mentioned earlier is not a huge number. In any case, a tail—or part
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1349
of a tail; let us not forget that option—can be amputated under general anaesthetic later in a dog's life if necessary.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |