Animal Welfare Bill

Of course I have seen the RCVS letter and I have had discussions with the RCVS. I want to make the point—my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber—that the vets who work for the RCVS will do whatever Parliament decides. It is up to Parliament to decide on this issue, not the vets. Vets have a long training, and if that is too difficult an issue to discuss with an owner in relation to their intention—that is all vets are being asked to do and to certify best intent—I think vets are putting themselves down fairly badly. I support the Select Committee report and I am delighted by the new clause, which takes all the points that the Select Committee has asked for and puts them down in detail. My hon. Friend the Minister has made the point that the strong aspect of the new clause is the unique proposal that will stop the showing of dogs that have been docked. That will stop the impetus towards docking dogs for cosmetic reasons. The new clause has been carefully crafted, and I support it. It will do the things that I want to be done. I accept that this is a difficult area, but the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen have used their best endeavours—the new clause is perfectly clear. What is not clear is the scientific basis. Everyone who has spoken in the Chamber has acknowledged that. The only people to produce any reliable statistics are the police, and they have been accused of being anecdotal. It is interesting to note that the police, Customs and search and rescue organisations, as well as those connected with shooting, all agree that there is a case for an exemption for working dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) rightly said that this Chamber is searched each day by dogs that have been docked. It is important to see what evidence the police can produce. The Metropolitan police dog training school says very clearly that 10 dogs have had full amputations as a result of accidents at work.