Information, Education & Advice - helping dogs in need
Information, Education & Advice - helping dogs in need
The Labour Party won the last time round at the 2005 UK General Election with 35.3% of the vote and a 356 parliamentary seat majority. Now the country decides on the 6th of May and its worth remembering that six million households own a dog with a UK dog population estimated at eight million (PFMA Annual Report 2009).
There has been plenty of discussion on the leading topics of the economy, recession, health, immigration and Afghanistan but where do our political parties stand on canine issues?
It’s difficult to pin point and actually find out what each party has to say on the different canine issues, so we’ve included here what information we have found available and the answers received to some of our questions. It’s you who decided on polling day, so remember to ask your local prospective parliamentary candidates for their views on the subjects important to you and help to keep canine issues and animal welfare on the political agenda.
There has been national discussion on the main points of each Manifesto as it has been launched; this is what we found relating to animal welfare and our dogs:
The Political Parties:
The Labour Party 2010 Manifesto states that they will ‘bring forward further animal welfare measures’. We’ve had a Labour Government since 1997 and they are focusing more on their track record rather than on what they intend to do. Labour asserts that they have proud achievements on animal welfare and over the past ten years have banned cruel practices, their record includes;
* The Hunting Act 2004 which made it illegal to hunt wild mammals with dogs 
in England and Wales.
* The Animal Welfare Act 2006 which makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met.
* The Pet Passport Scheme (PETS) was introduced so that pets entering or returning to the UK would not need to undergo the usual compulsory 6-month quarantine period. Dogs should be able to travel between member countries of the EU and certain non-EU countries which have qualified under the scheme.
The Conservative Party 2010 Manifesto states they will “promote responsible pet ownership by introducing effective codes of practice under the Animal Welfare Act and target irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs”.
The Liberal Democrats state that they believe that ownership and use of animals is a responsibility that should not be abused. Policy paper 61-Respecting All Animals refers several topics including Dangerous Dogs, Greyhound racing, licensing animal sanctuaries and microchipping.
The Green Party Manifesto does refer to animal welfare issues and protection. They will maintain the ban on hunting with dogs and ban the import of real fur products and ensure that real fur is clearly labelled until a ban is in place.
The Plaid Cymru Manifesto doesn’t refer to animal welfare, but we asked them for their opinions and they replied.
The Scottish National Party doesn’t specifically mention animal welfare in their Manifesto. We haven’t received a reply to our enquiry to date.
Animals Count is dedicated to animal welfare issues, their 2010 General Election Manifesto includes several key policies relating to dogs including a ban on ‘puppy farms’ and a ban on the sale of animals in retail stores. Animals Count offers the most comprehensive animal policies of all political parties.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) does have a section devoted to animal welfare in its 2010 Manifesto which states that all animals that share our planet deserve to be treated compassionately by humans and should be spared unnecessary suffering.
The Dangerous Dogs Act:
We contacted the Labour Party and asked them specifically for their views on several issues relating to dogs, their reply didn’t address the actuall issues we asked about so we have rewritten to them, they said:
“With the passing of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Labour put into law the most fundamental piece of animal welfare legislation for nearly a century. The act introduced a new duty of care on people to ensure the needs of any animal for which they are responsible; while creating a new offence of failing to provide for the needs of an animal in your care. The new laws place more emphasis on owners and keepers who now need to understand their responsibilities and take all reasonable steps to provide for the needs of their animals.”
Labour went on to pronounce that “while we have achieved a lot, we also recognise that it is vital that we look to ensure that the measures we have put in place are rigorously enforced, and that we continue to protect the rights of animals. We will continue seeking to win domestic and international support for further measures which protect the well being of animals in Britain and around the world. We must tackle cruelty head on, working to ensure that cruel and illegal practices are stamped out.”
A public consultation on dangerous dogs was launched on the 9th March by Defra; it runs until June 1st 2010.
Our current Labour Government wants to look at:
Less that one week in the Labour Government bizarrely declared that one of its proposals up for public debate, the compulsory insurance for all dogs, had been scrapped; despite the fact that they are asking for your opinions on it as part of the consultation.
Coinciding with the launch of the public consultation on dangerous dogs, Hilary Benn (Labour) the Environmental Secretary said:
“There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called ‘status dogs’ used to intimidate or threaten people. This is a serious matter of public safety. The Government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs, while supporting the vast majority of responsible dog owners.”
The Home secretary Alan Johnson (Labour) said:
“Britain is a nation of animal lovers, but people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon. It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop.”
Although Defra Minister Lord Rooker stated in 2008 that the Government does not think that new legislation is the answer, that there is no parliamentary time available to change current laws and there was no funding for new legislation.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling (Conservative) responded to the news on figures stating the number of dog attacks has increased under Labour and remarked:
"All we've really had for the past decade under this government is a series of speeches and headline-grabbing announcements about the things there were going to do to tackle problems like dangerous dog offences. But in the end nothing has ever happened. If Labour are re-elected in May all we'll get is the same tired-out old approach and none of the changes the country really needs."
Commenting in December 2009 on dog attack figures over the last eight years, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:
“It is astonishing that thousands of people are undergoing hospital treatment every year after violent dog attacks. The Dangerous Dogs Act is one of most ineffective pieces of legislation of recent years – costing millions and being completely unworkable. The huge rise in attacks is undoubtedly due to the worrying trend of dangerous dogs being used as fashion accessories or, worse, as weapons. Irresponsible owners are more likely to make a dog ‘dangerous’ than it being born a particular breed. Police need to be able to get tough with reckless owners of out-of-control dogs, regardless of the breed.”
We contacted the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, London Assembly and he responded on the issue of dangerous dogs which is a hot topic particular in the London area where large numbers of dogs are being seized as ‘pit bull types’ under the Dangerous Dogs Act legislation. We were informed:
“The London Assembly is not directly responsible for legislation in this area, however my colleagues on the Metropolitan Police Authority have urged the Metropolitan Police to work with London's borough councils to tackle the use of animals as weapons, take firm action against owners and crackdown on the mis-treatment of animals. In the General Election (the GLA is not up for election until 2012), the Liberal Democrat manifesto states our belief that ownership and use of animals is a responsibility that should not be abused and we have pledged to merge existing quangos to establish an Animal Protection Commission to investigate abuses, educate the public and enforce the law.”
The Lib Dems policy on Dangerous Dogs has this to say: "There have been many serious incidents involving dangerous dogs attackinghumans, sometimes fatally. In 1991, the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in response to a spate of attacks across the country but it was a rushed and poorly thought out piece of legislation. Problems still exist with dangerous dogs. In 2001, 3,400 people were hospitalised after dog attacks - a 25% rise over the previous five years. In Germany, the police can confiscate dogs suspected of being dangerous. The dogs are then subjected to a series of tests to prove whether they are actually dangerous. If the dog passes the test it is returned to its owners. If the dog fails the test it is given one more chance to be retrained
and re-tested and if it fails again it is destroyed. Liberal Democrats will:Update the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to move away from breed-specific legislation and towards a system which is similiar to the German system."
We contacted the Conservative Campaign HQ and David Cameron’s Correspondence Unit had this to say on the issue of dangerous dogs:
“We need a comprehensive approach to this problem with a focus on the minority of owners who use dangerous dogs as weapons, not the vast majority of responsible dog lovers.
Conservatives are reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to see how it can be made more effective, and have been working with organisations such as the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club. There needs to be greater emphasis on individual owner responsibility and ‘deed not breed’, to tackle the rise in the use of dogs as weapons.
We support extending dangerous dogs law to cover all places including private property, so that postal workers for example, can be protected from dangerous dogs, and we support giving police and councils more powers to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs by the introduction of Dog Control Notices."
The Green Party replied to our enquiry regarding the issue of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Caroline Allen MRCVS, policy co-ordinator for the London Green Party stated that it does not believe that the Dangerous Dog legislation is working. Adding that:
“There are more "pitbull" types than ever before, and they have become a status symbol. We believe in "deed not breed" but recognize there is a serious problem with the rising ownership of these "status dogs." This is an area where there is no quick fix, but we would re-introduce compulsory dog licensing, subside neutering programmes, improve education on pet ownership, and look to expand on the successful schemes currently being carried out by the some police forces and local authorities. We also recognize that the issue of irresponsible pet ownership is a problem of wider society and is related to anti-social behaviour. Our strong preventative policies on youth crime, drugs and inequality are just as important to consider here.”
The Scottish National Party (SNP) MSP Alex Neil introduced the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill as a Members Bill. This Bill was continued by Christine Grahame MSP for South of Scotland who has taken over the task of steering the Bill through Parliament.
It has now been passed at Stage 3 (April 2010) and is due to become an Act (law) in approx. one months time once it receives Royal Assent. More information on the Bill from the Scottish Parliament website.
The Plaid Cymru Party told us: “More specifically to your enquiries, I can confirm that the Minister for Rural Affairs in the Plaid-driven Welsh Government, Elin Jones AM, has ordered a review of the current dog breeding legislation to address issues raised by dangerous dogs and puppy farming.”
UKIP opinion on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 states that it “should be amended and action should be taken against all dogs that are shown to be dangerous, rather than concentrating solely on specified breeds. Police and animal welfare organisations must be given effective powers to address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as dangerous weapons, or for fighting, and stringent penalties should be introduced and enforced for this.”
In addition the UKIP web site also claims they “would also welcome the closing of the legal loophole which allows crossbreeding of dangerous dogs with other breeds as a means of avoiding the DDA 1991.”
The Animals Count Manifesto covers the Dangerous Dogs Act and agrees with the British Veterinary Association’s campaign for repeal and reform of the legislation, going on to note that:
“It is the irresponsible owners, some of whom deliberately train animals to fight and attack, that we need to target. ‘Dangerous’ status dogs or ‘dogs as weapons’ are considered fashionable within certain subcultures. A wider social approach is required to address such antisocial behaviour, including humane education.”
Puppy Farming:
We asked about the large number of ‘puppy farms’ licensed in Wales and Plaid Cymru said:
“The guidance issued on licensing of dog-breeding establishments is part of this review. Plaid Cymru’s Parliamentary Candidate for Llanelli, Dr. Myfanwy Davies, has been campaigning against the poor inspection standards for puppy farms in Carmarthenshire. She has been working with Helen Mary Jones AM to highlight their concerns to Plaid Minister, Elin Jones AM, who has also announced a ban on electronic training devices in Wales.“
The Green Party replied specifically on our concerns relating to commercial dog dealing and stated:
“We share your concern about unlicensed breeding premises and recognise the very serious animal welfare implications of the current situation. The conditions in which the animals are kept are often poor and the puppies are more likely to suffer from preventable infectious disease. In addition, there is a very real issue of overbreeding of dogs at the moment and an appalling number of healthy animals are being euthanased simply because they do not have a home. There is also a significant cost implication to local authorities, who now have responsibility for stray dogs.”
The Green Party would introduce a strict licensing of all animal breeders and ensure that this licensing was enforced. They would also “ensure there were adequate resources for this enforcement, which is a big part of the problems at the moment and would require all Local Authorities to employ an Animal Protection Officer to oversee this sort of work.”
The Green Party want to introduce a two tier system of dog-licensing (breeding and non-breeding), licensing of all animal breeders and dog owners, subsidised spaying and neutering and the implementation of good animal warden schemes.
Animals Count would seek to introduce a UK-wide animal abandonment prevention plan, regulate breeders and breeding facilities, strengthen the Animal Welfare Act and bring in improvements on Border control.
Compulsory Micro-Chipping:
The Introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs so that dog owners can be more easily traced is one of the proposals put forward as part of a Defra consultation currently running until 1st June 2010.
The Conservative Party responded "Micro-chipping pets is part of responsible ownership and we encourage greater use of micro-chipping so that pets can be traced to a legally accountable owner and to assist with cases of stolen, abandoned and stray animals.”
Plaid Cymru Deputy Minister, Jocelyn Davies AM, has urged all dog-owners to micro-chip their pet, and the compulsory micro-chipping of dogs is being considered by the review ordered by Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones AM. Ms Davies said in December 2009 that;
“Micro chipping is the best way of keeping pet dogs safe by permanently identifying them. She has called for the micro chipping of dogs to be made compulsory, and said that “I have had my own dog micro chipped and it is very reassuring ... Micro chipping is also an important tool when it comes to the welfare of dogs. In terms of cruelty, fighting and fouling, if a particular dog can be identified to their owner, then the owner can be tracked down and dealt with appropriately”.
The Green Party said on compulsory microchipping “we would go further and call for dog licensing, this would require microchipping in order to be successful.”
UKIP “supports the January 2010 Bateson Report’s recommendations, which include compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs”.
Animals Count seeks a compulsory identification and registration scheme.
We asked the Lib Dems for their specific policy on compulsory microchipping and have now received a copy of their 'Respecting All Animals' Policy (Paper 61-contact us for a copy).Liberal Dems will: "Introduce a system of compulsory registration for the ownership of dogs, involving clear identification, ideally through microchips. The scheme would be self-financing with the registration fee paying for the microchip, the national register and the dog warden network."
Hunting with Dogs:
The Hunting Act 2004, which came into force in 2006 was introduced by the Labour Government and made the hunting of all mammals with dogs illegal. It also includes a ban on hare-coursing.
The Conservative Manifesto pledges to restore hunting under a section entitled ‘restoring our civil liberties’; they have said that they plan to give the Commons a free vote to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs.
The Green Party for England and Wales will maintain the ban on hunting with dogs and extend to other blood sports, including the use of snares, and oppose badger culling.
Animals Count would extend the current ban on hunting with greater enforcement and stronger penalties for abuse.
We'll post up here any further responses we receive on canine issues.
Webmistress I Terms and Conditions I Contact Copyright © 2010 Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue Ltd |