By Libby Anderson, Policy Advisor, OneKind

THE main question in the recent debate over the tail docking of puppies was this: is it better to dock large numbers of very young puppies, or to let them keep their tails and accept that, as adults, a few may suffer injury in the field that could lead them to lose their tails anyway? Neither prospect was attractive, but MSPs would have found it easier to decide if evidence of the costs and benefits for animal welfare had been placed before them. It wasn’t – but the regulations were passed anyway. That may be water under the bridge but, after such a difficult debate, it would be wise to watch carefully to ensure that the declared animal welfare outcomes are achieved.

Recent parliamentary answers suggest, however, that the Scottish Government sees no need for any further discussion of the matter. Asked by Mark Ruskell MSP about pain in puppies and adult dogs and future monitoring, Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, stated that the Scottish Government “has no information on further work required to understand the differences in the experience of pain incurred through tail surgery in dogs” and “no plan to monitor the implementation” of the legislation.

The lack of evidence on pain – and without it, the impossibility of assessing any supposed gains for animal welfare – was raised many times as the legislation went through. Yet it appears from this response that not only does the Scottish Government not know about the different experiences of pain, but it does not plan to find out, either.

Assessing pain in young animals is problematic, but MSPs received ample scientific evidence from witnesses showing that it is significant. Any procedure required for an injured adult dog is at least carried out under anaesthetic, and with pain relief. None of this is possible when dealing with a very young puppy. Without clear information on this, MSPs were left to depend on anecdote and pictures of blood-spattered spaniels.

Monitoring implementation of this new policy is crucial, and the absence of any arrangements to do so is inexplicable. Vets presented with litters for docking will depend entirely on assurances from owners that all the puppies are expected to grow up to work. Without monitoring, how can anyone know that the procedure has been justified? Evidence from England suggests that these assurances are not always reliable.

These ethical difficulties were raised in evidence by respected Scottish veterinary institutions, along with concerns about policing, reporting and evidence gathering. One described the new regulations as “an unnecessary risk both to animal welfare and also to veterinary professional conduct”.

The reintroduction of tail-docking for some breeds passed despite several abstentions, and one vote against, from within the SNP. It appeared that – unlike the Scottish Conservatives – the party was by no means unanimous in its support for a return to tail docking.

After such a controversial and long-running debate, it would be surprising if this issue were to go away. It would surely be wise to keep it under review, and for all political parties to pay heed to the upset this move has caused.

The experience with tail docking, along with the response to Theresa May’s outspoken support for fox hunting during the election campaign, clearly shows that animal welfare matters to the electorate. This is reinforced by polling data which consistently shows that the Scottish public overwhelmingly back progress on animal protection. Holyrood should recognise this, and give the issue the priority it deserves.