Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Group 10 relates to operations and procedures. If Members are not happy with the provision of this level of detail I can shorten my contribution. My concern is to ensure that I do not skim over anything.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 55 relate to sections 16 and 52. There was much discussion about section 16, mainly concerning tail docking and exceptions for so-called working dogs. I have opted for a ban on tail docking for cosmetic purposes. However, there is still some compelling scientific research both available and pending and the balance of evidence seems to indicate that while some working dogs will avoid tail injuries from preventative tail docking, the number is small compared to the number who suffer from side effects associated with preventative tail docking. I suggest that those who think they are protecting the welfare of working dogs by having their tails docked should consider the research carefully.

The amendment to section 52 is to ensure the correct cross-reference to a subsection in section 16 is in place. In other words, what we are saying on tail docking is that the onus will be on the owner to prove there is a requirement to dock the tail of a dog. We are banning tail docking for all cosmetic purposes but we can deal with that through regulation at a later stage in conjunction with the bodies concerned with working dogs. I need to be convinced that tail docking is necessary. There is ongoing research, in particular in a university in Scotland at the moment on the issue of whether working dogs benefit from tail docking. We do not want the situation to arise whereby the tails of working dogs are mutilated and damaged severely by not having them docked. We aim to get the balance right.