UK Parliament / Open data

Animal Welfare Bill

Proceeding contribution from Shona McIsaac (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
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 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.””" It says that it "““recommends the third option: a ban on the docking of dogs’ tails except when the operation is carried out for therapeutic purposes.””" It goes on to say: "““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.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

443 c1344-5 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top