Hansard

Tail docking of dogs is one of the most controversial issues in the bill and sincere views are held by those who are for and against the provision of an exemption for the tail docking of working dogs. The amendments in the names of John Farquhar Munro and Ted Brocklebank, which would permit the tail docking of puppies if a veterinary surgeon certified that the dog was likely to be used as a working dog, are doubtless intended to protect the welfare of such dogs, but I am not convinced that the case has been made for an exemption for working dogs. The committee's stage 1 report questioned whether such an exemption was necessary.I appreciate that collecting evidence on tail damage in working dogs is difficult and that there is a lack of scientific studies on tail damage. I am aware of the views both for and against tail docking, but I believe that it is significant that the veterinary organisations have taken a very firm stance, which the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has even reaffirmed in recent weeks. In addition, it is significant that the RCVS, the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association all oppose tail docking except for therapeutic reasons. In other words, the veterinary organisations believe that tail docking should be undertaken only after a tail has been injured or diseased. It is also relevant that veterinary surgeons in countries where tail docking has been banned are not pressing for a resumption of docking to avoid tail injuries, even for working dogs.I am aware that Westminster narrowly voted in favour of an exemption for working dogs, but I believe that it was wrong to do so. We are taking the right approach and Scotland is leading the way on this welfare issue. Docking a dog's tail just because the dog might injure its tail later in life cannot be justified. Such reasoning cannot be used to defend a practice that is opposed by the leading veterinary organisations in the country and the vast majority of practising vets. The fact that an unacceptable procedure is allowed in England is no reason to permit it in Scotland.Like the committee, we believe that an exemption would be difficult to operate in practice and could be open to abuse. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which is also concerned about how the exemption would work, highlighted two areas of concern. First, the amendments propose that, to certify a dog, a veterinary surgeon would need to take a view on the likelihood of future events that would depend on the decisions of the dog's current and future owners. However, a veterinary surgeon's professional training is in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of animal disease; it does not extend to judging the intentions of third parties. When the puppy is less than five days of age, the veterinary surgeon will not be able to judge whether it will prove suitable for working and, further, to judge which puppies from a litter of docked puppies will be used for working.The RCVS is concerned that the exemption would leave open the possibility that a dog of any breed or type could become a certified working dog. For those reasons, I ask the committee to reject amendments 126, 126A and 131A.I also ask members to reject amendments 3 and 131D. Although they accurately reflect the Executive's policy of a total ban on the tail docking of dogs, we will put that ban on the face of the bill. The approach that is proposed in amendments 3 and 131D is wrong. We should have the flexibility to be able to make exceptions to the general ban on mutilations by regulations. Such an exemption would be made only after full and detailed consultation and approval by Parliament. That approach should be adopted for all mutilations. As has been stressed a number of times, I consider it important that as our knowledge of animal welfare develops, we can reflect those changes in our legislation and ensure that it is kept up to date with our thinking.That approach would give us the possibility of reviewing the policy on tail docking if it becomes apparent that there has been an increase in tail damage in working dogs. I do not expect that there will be an increase in tail damage that could give rise to a requirement for that power to be used. However, full and detailed consultation will take place before any exemption is presented to the Parliament for its approval. Not to have flexibility would remove that possibility. For those reasons, I ask members to reject amendments 3 and 131D. I stress that in arguing for that flexibility, I do not expect that there will be an increase in tail damage and thus a requirement to use the power.Amendments 129, 130 and 131 are all related. Indeed, amendments 129 and 130 are ancillary to the making of amendment 131. Amendment 131 amends the power of the Scottish ministers to create exceptions, which was previously contained in section 18(3). That provision enabled the Scottish ministers to make regulations only by reference to "circumstances", a term that is not considered broad enough to encompass, for example, the specification of a particular procedure. The amendment makes provision in new subsection (5) for the Scottish ministers to specify by regulations the purpose for which a mutilation may lawfully be carried out, the manner in which it may be carried out and any conditions under which it may be undertaken.To ensure proper consultation of all relevant interests, it is provided that the Scottish ministers must undertake a consultation before those regulations are made. That brings section 18 into line with regulation-making powers in other sections of part 2. I ask the committee to accept amendments 129, 130 and 131 and to reject amendments 3, 126, 126A, 131A, 131B, 131C and 131D.I move amendment 129.