Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 17:"Page 3, line 41, leave out subsections (3) to (6)." The noble Lord said: I am aware that should the amendment be agreed to it may mean a return to the situation whereby certain breeds of dogs can be docked whether or not they are likely to become working dogs. Cosmetic docking is, of course, already prohibited. This is a probing amendment in order to put down markers should we return to this issue in due course, as I hope we will. As a pointer in this direction, I understand that the Scottish Executive is about to recommend that tail docking should be completely banned in Scotland. That raises the interesting situation whereby there may well be movements of puppies from Scotland to England in order that they may be docked legally. Most certainly the governing bodies of the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom—the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association, as well as the British Small Animal Veterinary Association—are all against docking other than for therapeutic purposes. This has been the opinion of the profession for some 20 years since, as president of the RCVS, I chaired a heated debate on the subject. The crux of the issue is that certain working dogs may supposedly damage their tails when working in closed environments, in brushwood, in thickets or in other confined spaces if they are not docked. However, the evidence for that is not strong. In countries where docking has been banned there are no reports of significant increases in tail damage to working dogs. The working dogs listed in Clause 6 include emergency rescue dogs such as those used by RAPID UK, which go overseas to search collapsed buildings, and by NSARD, which usually work within the United Kingdom but not in collapsed buildings; they may work in thickets and premises, where they look for bodies, armaments and so on. I have been advised by the people concerned with these organisations that in no instance is docking required of such dogs. Indeed, they very strongly object to it. At Second Reading I dealt with the aspect of pain. I do not want to go into that further here, but there remains the question of asking a veterinary surgeon to certify that puppies less than five days old are likely to be used as working animals based on evidence produced by the owner. I think that issue, which is dealt with in my Amendment No. 20—I do not know whether the Minister wishes me to deal with it now or at a later stage—will be resolved under the Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (Certification Requirements) Regulations 2007. So that aspect, of asking a veterinary surgeon to certify something that he cannot himself be aware of, will be dealt with. I beg to move.