| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Borrow : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bellingham: I am going to sit down in a moment. This is yet another example of this Government saying one thing to the countryside and doing something completely different. That is why I am minded to support the status quo.
Anne Snelgrove (South Swindon) (Lab): As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I want to thank the Minister for the way in which he conducted our debates, for taking the Committee's temperature and for allowing us a free vote.
I want to begin by taking issue with what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said about past debates on animal welfare in this House. The first animal welfare Bill was debated and passed in 1911, and it is the sign of a civilised society when it debates, without mawkish sentimentality, the welfare of animals, whether they are pets or working animals. It is right that Members in all parts of the House find this issue important.
I will be supporting the Minister's amendments—even though he is unable to do so—mainly because of lobbying in my constituency. Stephen Smith, a local vet, wrote to me saying that tail docking
"is a procedure I have never elected to perform, on welfare grounds . . . it is not in the animal's best interests . . . puppies feel pain during the process of docking . . . the use of the tail to communicate is essential to a dog's well being . . . There is no scientific evidence to show that undocked working dogs damage their tails any more than undocked non-working dogs . . . If exemptions are introduced into the law there will always be an opportunity for exploitation of a loophole and inevitably the law will fail to protect the animals that it is intended to protect."
Those are overwhelming reasons why we should vote for a total ban, with no exemptions.
Vets throughout the country are making the same arguments as Stephen, saying that docking is not in the dog's interest. That has put some doubt in my mind about the crucial test—whether tail docking is a good thing. Surely it cannot be, given that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association have all long believed the practice to be unethical. As a result, it is no longer taught to veterinary students as part of their studies.
7.15 pm
The docking of animals' tails is not wrong if there is a scientific case for doing so; indeed, there is a strong case for the prophylactic docking of some animals. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—I am afraid that some Members seem to have little respect for the RSPCA, but I have a great deal of respect for it—is not asking for a ban on the docking of
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1359
lambs or piglets, subject, of course, to specific restrictions on the manner in which it is carried out. The National Farmers Union emphasises:
"What may be appropriate provision for companion animals is not necessarily appropriate for animals kept for commercial purposes as in farming."
No one would suggest that farmed animals should not be protected by docking. Reference was made earlier to a sheepdog soiling itself, and it was argued that it would be better for such animals to have their tails docked at birth. Members should be aware that according to the RSPCA, proper and careful grooming of dogs is a far better approach than cutting off the tail to avoid the area underneath becoming soiled with faecal matter. In some cases, hygiene problems are increased by docking, as the procedure can damage the anal muscles. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate from one species to another, and the evidence is that what is appropriate for livestock is not right for dogs.
In considering whether to dock the tail of a puppy or to leave it, the moral dilemma will always be weighing the potential pain from possible tail damage against the definite pain from what may turn out to be an unnecessary preventive measure. There is evidence of pain, but no evidence of benefit. I advanced this argument on Second Reading and in Committee, where I was pleased to table the amendment prohibiting docking, and I want to address it again. The House of Commons Library provided a journal article on the available research and, according to that, all the evidence reviewed thus far is consistent with the claim that docking causes acute pain to dogs. No evidence could be found to support the claim that new-born pups do not experience any pain at the time of docking. On the question of benefit, the article concludes:
"The absence of appropriate studies in this area represents a significant difficulty for those who support tail docking, even in those breeds that may be expected to sustain tail damage."
Dr. Palmer: I was unable to read the full Committee proceedings, but am I right in believing that a substantial majority of Committee members favoured a total ban?
Anne Snelgrove: That is entirely correct. Those who reached a decision one way or another—that did not include the Conservatives—indicated that they supported a total ban, which is why we are debating this issue today and having a free vote on it.
An unscientific study by a Swedish German pointer breed society in 1989—my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) mentioned it earlier—showed that of the 191 dogs studied, amputations had to be conducted on only seven. Therefore, 97 per cent. of those dogs did not need to be docked. In the light of robust evidence from Denmark and Norway, even if the pro-dockers are right and there is a 20 per cent. increase in tail injuries following a docking ban, which is doubtful, tail injuries would rise from under 0.037 per cent. to 0.044 per cent., leaving some 99 per cent. of dogs with healthy, uninjured tails.
Mr. Russell Brown
: A local vet in my constituency produced two letters, one dated 1991 and the other 1997,
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1360
from the Swedish Boxer club, suggesting that for that breed injuries had increased from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., but the information is scant because it does not give the actual number of dogs involved. Does my hon. Friend have any more up-to-date information?
Anne Snelgrove: I have indications from vets in my constituency that the number of injuries to dogs whose tails were not docked following a ban would not exceed the number of injuries in dogs that are not docked at present. The number of injuries would remain almost the same and we would not see any huge increase. One in six dogs—1 million—is docked. We do not have 1 million working dogs. Only a third are even working breeds. Thirty thousand dogs are docked a year, if the average dog lives for 10 years. [Interruption.] Docking is a very popular practice and we need to be realistic and accept that there would be abuses—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the House that we must not have casual conversations while the hon. Lady is addressing the House?
Anne Snelgrove: We are told that an exemption would mean that a vet would have to certify that the dog is likely to be a working dog, but the word "likely" is not a very high barrier to overcome. We already know that even a dog likely to be a working dog is unlikely to injure its tail.
We are told that the exemption would also lead to a ban on showing dogs with docked tails, but as I have said, 1 million dogs are currently docked and not all of them are show dogs. People are docking dogs for cosmetic reasons, but not always to put them in a show.
As a House we welcome the Animal Welfare Bill and the story of the improvements in animal welfare in this country. We have moved a long way away from cruelty. Cruelty has been excused by tradition, for cosmetic or entertainment reasons, or on the basis of anecdotal evidence. However, we have moved towards the treatment of animals based on the best scientific evidence and the highest standards possible. I doubt that allowing docking to continue would be in any way beneficial, and without full confidence in that, I have to vote for a complete ban.
Mr. Harper : I had planned to vote for new clause 8, but having listened to the debate and to the Minister's promises of what he will do if clause 5 remains in the Bill, I shall vote against the new clause. I am not entirely comfortable with the definitions in the Bill of working dogs.
For welfare reasons, we have to consider the likelihood of a dog having more damage to its tail in later life than it would if it were docked. That likelihood has to vary with the nature of the breed involved. That is why I am not comfortable with considering only what the dog may do for a living.We also need to consider what dogs that are not working dogs do in rural areas. If certain breeds of dog have a particular propensity to suffer damage to their tails, it does not matter whether they are working dogs or companion dogs. Dogs taken for walks in rural areas, such as the Forest of Dean, are likely to engage in the same activities—going down holes, for example—as working dogs. That would not be covered by an exemption for working dogs.
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1361
A better approach would be to keep clause 5 in the Bill and have the Minister bring forward regulations to exempt tail docking. At the same time, we could consider how to drive down the demand for cosmetic docking by adopting the sensible provisions in new clause 8 about the showing of animals.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |