DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES BILL (Hansard, 20 July 1949)

LORD MERTHYR
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill. I think I can explain it very shortly. Clause 1(1) imposes a prohibition on the process of docking and nicking of horses. Subsection (2) provides an exception and makes it legal to dock a horse's tail where it is necessary for the health of the horse because of "disease or injury to the tail." Subsection (3) imposes a penalty. Clause 2 deals with imports. Imports of docked horses are prohibited, with the exception set out in subsection (2) where imports which are intended for re-export are allowed; imports for breeding purposes are also allowed under certain safeguards and licences. Again there follow penalty clauses in subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (5), your Lordships will note, says that This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five. The object of that subsection is to give ample notice and time to those concerned in importing horses, and is in fact agreed between the people concerned. Then follows a rather important interpretation clause, Clause 3. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 5, subsection (3), which says: This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. One result of that will be that it will still be possible—and I admit that this is a temporary weakness in the position—to import horses from Eire through Northern Ireland into the remainder of the United Kingdom, but we thought it right to exclude Northern Ireland from this Bill because we took the view that it would be proper for the Northern Ireland Parliament to introduce a Bill of their own on the same subject.
331 This Bill has already passed through all its stages in another place. It is also almost word for word the same as a Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading in 1938. On that occasion, in spite of the rejection being moved, it was carried by fifty-five votes to twenty. I am glad to see two other noble Lords besides myself here this evening who took part in that debate. Although they belonged to different Parties, they both voted on the right side. In support of this Bill I put forward two general propositions. The first is that docking is cruel; the second is that it is unnecessary. The general law of this country, as I understand it, is that cruelty to animals is lawful so long as it is necessary. When it becomes unnecessary, it also becomes unlawful. I say that this practice of docking is cruel for two reasons: first, the operation itself is cruel. It is quite true to say that, under the Animals and Anæsthetics Act, 1919, it is compulsory to use anæsthetics, but the fact remains that that is a difficult piece of legislation to enforce. It is easy in out-of-the-way farms and other places to evade the law.
Secondly, and much more important, there is the question of cruelty that follows for the rest of the animal's life, through the deprivation of his tail. The tail is provided by nature to protect a horse against flies in summer and against the elements in winter. To remove the tail is not only an unnatural thing to do but it makes the horse completely vulnerable to those two things. Nature provides, in one way or another, a complete protection for the whole of the horse's body, and in the parts not covered by the tail it provides protection for the horse against flies. The parts covered by the normal tail are completely unprotected in any other way and, in our submission, therefore, it is a most cruel practice to remove the tail. If any of your Lordships have seen horses out in a field during hot weather you will, I think, appreciate the cruelty involved in the complete or partial removal of the tail.
In trying to prove that it is unnecessary, I must deal very briefly with some of the objections to the Bill. It is, or was, said by the opponents of the Bill that there is a danger of the reins getting under the tail. That, I submit, is purely 332 bad driving. It is said that it is difficult to use horses for ploughing when they are not docked. That, I also say, is not a good point, because there are millions of horses used for ploughing, or were before tractors came in, principally in America; and I think it is demonstrated that it is not necessary to have docked horses in ploughs. Then it is said that undocked tails become dirty and are difficult to clean. It may save a little trouble to dock a tail; but I ask your Lordships, is cruelty to horses justified in order to save trouble to those who look after them? If trouble needs to be saved, it can be done by cutting the hair and binding it up. Then it is said that docking improves the appearance of the horse. That is a matter of opinion. I hold the opposite view, as do a great many people. I submit it is purely a question of fashion; it comes and goes. Docking has really been dwindling but is still prevalent in this country, mainly among horses exhibited at shows. Whatever the right answer to that question, it does not justify cruelty to animals.
Finally, it is said that it is difficult to have an undocked horse in a tip cart. To that I reply that it is due to bad harnessing and to the traces being too short; and to get over that difficulty the solution is not to cut the horse to fit the cart, but to make the cart to fit the horse. My Lords, if this process of docking is necessary, why is it that millions of horses have been worked undocked, principally in other countries but also in this country, for a long period of time? In the last century, between 1840 and 1880, it was an uncommon thing in this country to dock horses, and there has never been a time when horses were more used than during those decades.
I have taken some trouble to inquire about the position overseas. My information may not be quite up to date, but the results are interesting. On making inquiries overseas, it was found that docking is regarded as an English fashion; that in many parts of the world it is not carried on at all, and it is certainly not in all tropical countries, for obvious reasons. In seven States in the United States, it was prohibited as long ago as 1938, and possibly it is prohibited in more by this time. In Norway, Sweden and Germany it is illegal, and I would ask, if it is necessary, as alleged, 333 how comes it that it has been prohibited in those countries? Inquiries in the British Dominions elicited the information: "That sort of thing is not done here. Therefore, it is not necessary to pass legislation to prohibit it." I would ask this further question: If England is rightly regarded as a horse-loving country and also—as I hope it is—as a country which disapproves very strongly of cruelty to animals, how is it that this antiquated practice is still allowed to continue?
The last time I introduced this Bill was in 1938, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor—who I am sorry is not present in your Lordships' House to-night—then described it as "grandmotherly legislation." I am afraid that the lady is still very much alive, and will continue to be so until this Bill becomes an Act. Finally, I would like to say this, in apologising to your Lordships for having introduced this Bill at this hour of the night: that it is not intended to take the Committee stage until the autumn, if your Lordships see fit to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
My Lords, I do not propose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but, at the same time, I reserve my right to move some Amendments at the Committee stage.

§ LORD CHORLEY
My Lords, so far, at any rate, there is no law against the docking of speeches. Your Lordships may think it would be useful to have such a measure! Until such an Act is on the Statute Book, however, I propose to avail 334 myself of the law as it at present stands, and to keep my speech very short. His Majesty's Government welcome this Bill and will give it their support. They agree that arguments which have been put forward against this Bill are greatly over-weighted, and that, while there may be certain inconveniences, it is very unlikely that the carrying through of the Bill would, in fact, have the harmful effects which have been suggested. It is true that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken considerable interest in the matter, and that it was necessary to safeguard the position in respect of imported docked horses. There is a certain amount of docking of horses in some Continental countries, and, as some of those horses ire valuable for breeding it is necessary that we should be in a position to import them for that purpose. Negotiations over this have given rise to a certain amount of difficulty, but they have now been satisfactorily carried through. The Bill, as it has come through from the other place, bears the imprint of those negotiations, and is now satisfactory to His Majesty's Government who give it their support.