Clause 5 - Mutilation
Animal Welfare Bill
4:15 pm
Bill Wiggin (Shadow Minister (Agriculture & Fisheries), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)
I shall confine myself to amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which are designed to make the Bill state explicitly that the clause is relevant to tail docking and dew claw amputation, and make provisions for their regulation. The Bill is unclear about the future of those practices and whether they will be banned or regulated, or whether the status quo will remain. Those practices, which we all know are contentious and controversial, have been left aside. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have made a strong case for keeping the measures in place, particularly for working dogs. The Secretary of State has stated:
''I am very conscious indeed that the docking of dogs' tails is a controversial practice. At present, the law permits veterinary surgeons to undertake the operation, and the Government are inclined to support the status quo.''—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 165.]
Moreover, paragraph 15 of the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, which was signed by this Minister, states that the Government's preference is that
''there should continue to be freedom of choice''.
The amendment would be welcome as it allows for the continuation of prophylactic docking to prevent future suffering from being inflicted on an animal. It would put into the Bill the views expressed by the Secretary of State and the Minister.
Amendment No. 163 would make tail docking a lawful activity within the criteria specified. Tail docking is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill, but we all know that this clause on mutilation is designed to cover the issue. Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill that makes provision for prophylactic docking when it would be in the long-term interests of the dog. For example, if both parents of a dog suffer from split tails, it is highly probable that their offspring will suffer the same condition, especially in the case of working dogs. In those circumstances, it would be a failure in the duty of care not to take the appropriate and necessary preventive measures against future suffering.
When docking was banned in Sweden, the Swedish-German pointer club carried out a research project on the ban's effects on working dogs between 1989 and 1991. The conclusions indicated that 38 per cent. of undocked working dogs received tail injuries within the first 18 months of the study. By the end of the study, that figure had risen to 51 per cent. It is therefore clear that prophylactic docking has welfare advantages. We also know that the Secretary of State wishes to keep the practice in place. The amendment would clarify the Bill and ensure that any activity resembling tail docking, or carried out under the auspices of tail docking but not within the specific criteria, would be a tail mutation and therefore illegal under the appropriate provision.
I know that this is a contentious subject, and I hope that I have put my argument in a clear and measured way so that we can take the issue forward.