I do not profess to know whether or not Tony Blair's proposed education reforms are going to improve the state of education in England and Wales. I perceive that our system of education is not so effective or successful as it once was, before decades ago the tinkering began in an attempt to improve upon the supposedly inequitable system that had evolved following the Education Act of 1944.  At the very least therefore, I accept that a full debate upon this issue is essential.

These latest proposed reforms by the Government do not have any impact in Scotland, where the Scottish Assembly has sole jurisdiction concerning matters involving education. Parliament is thus faced with an issue that affects England and Wales, alone.  It is reported in The Times today (21st January 2006) by Rosemary Bennett and Tony Halpin, that up to a third of the forty strong group of Scottish Labour MPs intent to actively oppose the Government's education reforms.  This opposition is to be low key, we are told, so as not to attract attention to the "West Lothian Question", which would be a diversion from the main issue.

It is wholly objectionable that Scottish MP's should be allowed a say in English affairs when Parliament has no say over the same matters in devolved Scotland.  That a Labour Government will never address the West Lothian Question, is without doubt.  The plain fact of the matter is that, save for the odd aberration, a Labour administration needs its Scottish contingent to carry the vote in matters relating to a largely Conservative/Liberal Democrat England.

The current "hot" debate that has arisen in relation to the Animal Welfare Bill currently before Parliament has provided more evidence of our politically motivated classes being unable to think through the logical consequences of their prejudices, or of the cans of worms they open inadvertently.

I am not qualified to comment as regards the rights and wrongs of tail docking for "working dogs".  It makes sense to me that if the undocked tail of a dog will suffer repeated injury during its working life, then docking very shortly after birth is the answer.  Then again, routine docking of all dogs of certain breeds suggests that in many cases the purpose is more aesthetic, than for health reasons.  The problem I have with all the concern generated by the issue, leaving aside the waste of parliamentary time that is likely to result, is the fuzzy thinking that it discloses.

Tail docking is not a great moral issue of our time.  If it was, all such similar mutilation of mammal body parts would be up for debate.  As Byron Walmsley, a Consultant Urological Surgeon, says in his letter to The Times today (21^st January 2006):

"How can a Government that is so concerned for the welfare of puppy dogs' tails, continue to allow the practise of male circumcision for non-medical reasons?"

Quite.