 be Would I but with this decision time. The next item of business is consideration of a further parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Vit repet right on behalf of the Bureau to move motion 6257 on the approval of the prohibited procedures on protected animal exemptions Scotland Amendment regulations 2017. I believe to be in this debate. I will call on members to order, and each member has I have been, up to four minutes. I call Finlay Carson. generatement, ors comfortable, ors acceptable, breath up counted. Right across the chamber, I recognise and understand, why, at the time of abortion, texas straulting is a highly emotive topic.urn up my colleagues and I, on the bill for the highest level of animal welfare. The Environment, Climate Change, Land Reform, committees sat through many hours of evidence from both sides of the argument. A wide range of people—from gamekeepers to farmers—all of whom of whom are dog lovers and committed to the welfare of dogs have contributed to the committee's evidence expressing their support for changes to the legislation. However, let me make it clear, we are supportive of the ban in place on tail docking but having considered the available evidence very carefully we have taken the decision to support the Government in creating an exemption to the ban on tail shortening for a very limited number of working dogs. It is important to make clear exactly what that exemption will mean. The exemption will permit the shortening by up to a third and by a vet of the tales of spaniel and hunt point retriever puppies where a vet believes that they are likely to be used as a working dog and possibly risk serious tale injuries later in life. Tail dotting will quite rightly continue to be illegal for the vast majority of dog breeds. That will bring us into line with similar exemptions that already exist in the rest of the UK. We believe that permitted tail shortening will reduce the incidents of painful injuries that a working dog can sustain later in life, injuries that could lead to the amputation of a dog's tail. Let us not forget, and I am sure that on this we can agree across the chamber that all vets are committed to improving animal health and welfare. Vets will always act in the best interests of the animals that they are treating. We are allowing vets to make professional, informed and considered decisions as to whether a puppy, presented to them from a breed of dog with a higher chance of a tail injury, is likely to be used as a working dog, and that is the right decision to take. I have trust in our vets. I trust them to make the right decision to reduce the risk of extreme suffering for working dogs. On balance on these benches, we believe that tail shortening is a humane method of reducing the chance of the undisputed extreme pain and long-term suffering that tail injuries can cause working dogs. It is for those reasons that Scottish Conservatives will support the SSI today. I rise to oppose the SSI before us this evening. As Scottish SPCA has made clear that the tail docking of dogs in Scotland was banned in 2007 under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2007, the Parliament looked at the evidence then and, by an overwhelming majority, passed the legislation. That Parliament was recognised worldwide for putting animal welfare first. To pass the SSI tonight will be a retrograde step for animal welfare. Let me be clear. No animal welfare or veterinary organisation has supported the proposal to overturn the ban. The dogs trust were deeply saddened by the proposal. The Blue Cross warned that it was changing a strong stance on animal welfare based on a narrow-range response with little consideration of the negative implications. The BVA confirmed its opposition to the exemption and warned as a backward step when previously Scotland had led on animal welfare. Before I proceed, let me quote from a hard-working Highland vet, Matthew Erskine, a member of the British Veterinary Association. He tells me that tail docking and shortening involves, and I'm quoting, the cutting through or crushing of skin, muscles and up to seven pairs of nerves, bone and cultures in puppies, under five days old, without anaesthetic. BVA considers that puppies suffer unnecessary acute pain as a result of docking potential resulting in chronic pain and are deprived of a vital form of canine expression. A survey carried out by Nuna Nadal said that 76 per cent of vets believe that tail docking causes significant pain, and no vets believe that the procedure was free of pain. The veterinary record, published in an article by David Morton, said that should the tail wag the dog, he said that between two and 108 puppies would need to suffer the pain and distress caused by tail docking in order to bring the prevalence of tail injury down to that of a non-working breed. He says, and I'm quoting, by any calculation, still more animals need to be docked than are injured, so even based on a permatic utilitarian argument it's still questionable whether this is acceptable. Surely it is better just to treat those injured as the total sum of overall harm would be far less than that caused by docking all puppies in a litter as a preventative measure. Enforcment of the regulations are also problematic. Only a vet can carry the tear shortening procedure, but the vet must be satisfied that the dog age five days or less is definitely going to be used for working connection with the lawful shooting of animals. How will this work in practice? While breaching the regulations, as was outlined in evidence to the ECR committee, it can result in both sanctions by vet's professional bodies and criminal proceedings under the Animal Welfare Scotland Act that includes imprisonment. Presiding officer, in conclusion, like many here I'm proud of this Parliament and our achievements. Free personal care, the smoking ban, the Scottish Malawi partnership, to name but a few. Animal welfare is up there as well. Maybe not so much headline-grabbing but significant, important, progressive. I feel proud to be part of such a Parliament. Today could be a turning point when we put aside party interests and think about who we are and how we carry ourselves. I urge members to oppose this SSI. All that's needed now is the will to do and the soul to dare. I'm one of the few members of this current Parliament who considered the evidence around tail docking when the Animal Welfare Bill passed just over a decade ago. I'm also somebody who's actually witnessed a tail docking operation in a litter of puppies. It gives me no pleasure to have to rise to oppose this ill-conceived, illogical, anti-scientific reversal of what was a progressive policy to protect the welfare of dogs. The American historian Henry Brook Adams once said that practical politics consists in ignoring facts. Let's look at the facts that will be ignored by the majority of SNP and Tory members in this chamber if they press their buttons in defence of tradition and against the science of veterinary medicine. Christine Grahame. I thank the member. Does he agree with me that with BVA Scotland, Animal Welfare organisations throughout Scotland and 70 per cent of the public are pausing exemptions to the ban on tail docking, which is its proper name? That backbenchers, particularly on the SNP benches, should vote tonight because of their impartial and informed opinions and reject exemptions to tail docking. Mark Ruskell. I'm delighted to support Christine Grahame on this issue. I commend the leadership that she's shown on Animal Welfare issues for many, many years in this Parliament. I just hope that more of her colleagues will join her tonight and the rest of us. Tail docking in a puppy is a painful tail amputation. It's not shortening, it's an amputation that is required to be carried out without pain relief. It makes no difference in terms of pain as to whether the tail is totally removed or partially removed. By the Government's own admission, the law will require at least 80 puppies' tails to be amputated to prevent an injury-requiring amputation in a single adult working dog. How is that a net benefit to Animal Welfare? Does a puppy feel 80 times less pain than an amputated adult dog? Where's the veterinary evidence for this? Let's be clear where this proposal started. It began with Richard Lockhead in 2007, a new minister understandably keen to placate the country's sports lobby. What then followed was a series of flawed studies. The first one, based on a self-selecting survey of shooters, asked to report tail injuries in working dogs, a biased campaigning piece of research led by traditionalists, not veterinary evidence. A second study then looked at populations of working breed dogs, but there was a complete failure to investigate other, more damaging causes of tail injury such as poor kenneling and no analysis of alternatives to protect working dogs such as tail sheathing. There was no research into the negative impact of tail docking on behaviour, communication and potential confrontations between dogs. Professor Donald Broome in his evidence to committee said that, and I quote, removing a significant part of a dog's tail is like preventing a significant part of human speech. Yet this Government wants to allow this to happen to working dogs without any analysis of the behavioural problems that could cause dogs and people. A promised third study into the actual tail injuries of actual working dogs based on veterinary cases was never commissioned, but why bother, Presiding Officer, with the evidence when you have the votes already in the bag? The Green Party agrees with every single veterinary professional body in the UK that the reintroduction of tail docking for working breeds dogs is wrong on animal welfare grounds. Scotland had the most progressive animal welfare laws anywhere in the UK at the end of that bill, but now we see the Scottish Government attempting a race to the bottom to mirror the weak legislation loopholes that exist in England. Presiding Officer, we need rationality, reason and evidence brought to the Parliament whenever a change of the law is proposed. This proposal, shamefully, has none of those. It is a backward step, it is a dangerous precedent for this Parliament to set. I thank all those in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for the diligence of the work that they carried out in scrutinising the statutory instrument. It cannot have been an easy task for views and against amending the current blanket ban on tail docking are strongly and, I believe, sincerely held. I am also conscious that, unlike other speakers in this afternoon's brief debate, I have not had the benefit of sitting through all the evidence presented to the committee. Nevertheless, this is an issue with which I am familiar and I am grateful to the various organisations for the detail briefings that they have provided in their run-up today, not least because of the short notice that they would have been given of this debate and the vote. At this point, I see very little purpose in rehearsing the arguments again that we have heard from Finlay Carson, David Stewart and Mark Ruskell. It is suffice to say that Scottish Liberal Democrats accept that the basis for the case being made for and against the proposed change is founded on welfare concerns. Inevitably, those concerns will be weighted differently by different people. On that basis, it seems inappropriate, as Christine Grahame, rather forcefully and rightly pointed out, to apply a party whip to the decision, and therefore colleagues will vote accordingly. The 2010 regulations imposed an outright ban on tail docking of dogs—all dogs. Today's draft regulations would amend them to allow an exemption for tail shortening by a veterinary surgeon in limited circumstances, but only for the purpose of benefiting dog welfare and only in connection with breeds used in shooting activities. That is a very emotive and divisive issue, but welfare issues are on both sides of the debate, as Liam McArthur indicated. We firmly believe that shortening the tails of puppies at risk of tail injury while engaged in lawful shooting activities in later life will improve the welfare of those dogs. Research commissioned from the University of Glasgow showed that around one-seventh of working dogs in one shooting season alone sustained at least one tail injury with a higher incidence for certain breeds. However, in line with the research findings, we intend that shortening should apply to only those most at risk. The proposed exemption therefore applies to the only two types of working dogs, spaniels and hunt-point retrievers that are most at risk and are most commonly used in those lawful activities. The regulations also ensure, as far as possible, that only those dogs likely to be used for lawful shooting purposes can have their tails shortened and only by veterinary surgeons. The operating vet must be satisfied with—sorry, but I need to finish this— the operating vet must be satisfied with the evidence produced showing that the dog is likely to be used for working in later life. The amendment will place the responsibility for making the decision in the hands of those best placed to make an informed professional judgment. Those are the practising veterinary surgeons, mostly in rural Scotland, who know the clients who are working dog breeders, understand the risks of injury associated with normal shooting activities and, most importantly, also have a professional duty to ensure the welfare of all animals in their care. Individual vets will, of course, be under no obligation to shorten tails if they do not believe that it is in the best interests of the animals that they are presented with. The term amputation, instead of shortening, has been used in a number of instances with an implication that the whole of a tail would be removed. However, the evidence showed no greater reduction in the probability of injury by removing more than the end third of the tail. The draft regulations therefore limit shortening to that extent. Dogs with two thirds of their tail and all of their other ways of using body language to communicate will still be able to socialise normally, something that anyone who has ever seen a working spaniel happily and vigorously wagging a tail that has already been shortened will understand. Yes, tail shortening is briefly painful, but that has to be weighed against the often prolonged recovery from serious tail surgery in an adult dog who has suffered pain before treatment and may also suffer in recovery. The pictures of those injuries are every bit as shocking as anything else members may have seen. The evidence suggests that working dogs with a shortened tail are up to 20 times less likely to injure their tails in later life. I therefore ask you to follow the recommendation of the committee and support this amendment. Whatever your personal views on shooting as a sport, I believe that the amendment is proportional, based on the best evidence that we have, and, most importantly, will improve the welfare of dogs that are involved in this lawful activity. I seek your advice on what we are voting on today at decision time in relation to the motion on freedom of information. The motion before us to be accepted in full and then amended by the Government calls for an independent inquiry into the way that the Government has dealt with freedom of information and not a review by the information commissioner or, indeed, anything else other than an independent inquiry and post-legislative scrutiny. It is important that we know what we are voting for because, listening to the heartless minister today, he seems to be under the impression that we are voting for something else. I am sure that you and I would not want members to be voting for the wrong thing. Can you offer me and others a bit of helpful guidance on what we are voting for? I thank the member for advance notice of his point of order. I note the concerns of the member's rates, but I do not believe that, in this case, it is up to the chair to interpret the member or the minister's remarks. The motion before the Parliament puts a proposition to members. It is up to members to debate that point and take a view on the proposition before the Parliament. Once or if the proposition is agreed, it becomes a resolution of the Parliament and it will then be up to the Government to decide how to respond to that resolution appropriately. We now come to decision time. A number of questions. The first one being that amendment 6126.1, in the name of Joffice Patrick, which seeks to amend motion 6126, in the name of Edward Mountain, on freedom of information requests, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 6126, in the name of Edward Mountain, as amended, on freedom of information requests, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 6186.4, in the name of Fergus Ewing, which seeks to amend motion 6186, in the name of Peter Chapman, on agriculture, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We are not agreed. We will have a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment to the name of Fergus Ewing is yes, 61, no, 57. There were six abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 6186.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Peter Chapman, on agriculture, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Rhoda Grant is yes, 57, no, 61. There were six abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 6186, in the name of Peter Chapman, as amended, on agriculture, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 6126, in the name of Edward Mountain, as amended, is yes, 80, no, 36. There were eight abstentions and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on nine parliamentary bureau motions. That does not include the motion on tail docking. If any member objects, please say so now. No member is objected. Therefore, the question is that motions 6243, 6245 to 6246, 6250, 6251, 6253 to 6256, all in the name of Joseph Patrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 6257, in the name of Joseph Patrick, on approval of the prohibited procedures on protected animal exemptions Scotland amendment regulations, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 6257, in the name of Joseph Patrick, is yes, 86, no, 29. There were nine abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members business in the name of Alexander Stewart on stroke care in Scotland. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.