Animal Welfare Bill

I declare an interest as the owner of two terriers, both of which have docked tails. I am very interested in finding out the answer to this question. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, says, quite accurately, that the veterinary profession has said for a long time that docking is not required. He will be equally aware that the countryside lobbying bodies say it is required, and presumably various other people have lobbied the Minister to get, for instance, the dogs that sniff round the Chamber exempted from this regulation. I do not know what the situation is and I would love to know the real answer. If it is right that a prophylactic operation is required to prevent considerable suffering in later life of working dogs, then we should allow it and it should not be a problem for anyone. If it is the case that it is not required and is merely an old wives’ tale from the past, we should know that too because it is a bit of unnecessary mutilation—and when it comes to paying the vet, unnecessary expense—that we could all avoid. I have two amendments in this group. I suspect one will be beaten by Amendment No. 19, in that the Government will have something better to propose to deal with what a vet can practically be asked to certify. The second amendment is based on the premise that if certification goes ahead, the current position, where a vet who is known to have docked a dog’s tail can be censured by his professional body for so doing, should not continue. If we are to put a requirement in law that a vet should certify these things, he should not be subject to censure for doing it.