Animal Welfare Debate - The Puppy Trade

I would like to thank the many constituents who have contacted me this week about the important issue of animal welfare. Neil Parish MP, member for Tiverton and Honiton has secured a backbench business debate tomorrow in Parliament about stricter legislation surrounding the puppy trade. I am unfortunately unable to attend due to a long standing commitment with the Public Accounts Committee. Please be assured, however, I fully support the aims of this debate and hope to see better protection for animals against cruel and unfair breeding practices.

Tighter laws around selling and breeding dogs will make it illegal to sell puppies younger than eight weeks old and require anyone breeding and selling three or more litters of puppies a year to apply for a formal licence. Breeders who do not follow these rules will face an unlimited fine and/or up to six months imprisonment.

The new rules will also mean that ‘backstreet breeders’ as well as larger commercial breeders must meet strict welfare criteria to get a licence. They will also govern anyone trading commercially in pets online.

If this new licencing scheme is properly enforced, it should allow buyers to distinguish between a reputable breeder and a rogue breeder or seller.  

The rapid rise of social media sites such as Instagram and Facebook has brought with it a worrying trend of certain dog breeds becoming more sought-after and ‘fashionable’. For example, the Pug and French Bull dog have become extremely popular in recent years – this is reflected not only online but in well-known shops selling merchandise and clothing with images of these dog breeds on it. This will naturally put pressure on the puppy trade industry as the demand increases.
In January, the RSPCA reported that there was an increasing number of these ‘designer’ dog breeds being abandoned and making their way into their care. Premature separation from mothers and over-breeding have severe negative consequences for animals’ health and wellbeing. Many irresponsible breeders neglect the welfare of their animals and may not properly vaccinate them, leading to steep vet’s bills for buyers. This ultimately adds to the number of abandoned dogs when their owners realise they cannot afford to give them the care they need. The RSPCA reported that many of the abandoned dogs suffered from severe skin conditions and other medical concerns, which is likely due to the poor conditions they have been bred and raised in by puppy dealers as well as neglect from owners.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government are responsible for animal welfare. The SNP Scottish Government has already implemented an Animal Dealers Regulation, which restricts the sale of young cats and dogs, and ensures the welfare of puppies who pass through a dealer. Despite this being a devolved matter, I have publically supported many campaigns promoting better protection of animals and I welcome the recent changes the UK Government has made.

Many animal welfare charities encourage anyone considering owning a dog to think about rehoming an older dog first. I would encourage anyone planning to buy a dog from a breeder or seller to beware of irresponsible breeders and sellers. The new legislation set out by the UK Government is certainly a step in the right direction however, I do believe in order for it to be effective, it requires proper and robust enforcement. I hope the UK Government will continue to take steps to protect animals and I will continue to support any campaign that calls for better animal welfare laws.

 

Questioning the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Process

Given my role as a representative of the UK Government, I am frequently approached by constituents who have experienced problems with the PIP process. Their experiences raised questions about the efficiency and transparency of the way these payments are being processed and distributed and prompted me to investigate further.

Personal Independence Payment is a benefit that is intended to help with the extra costs of living with a long-term health condition of a disability. It is non-means-tested, non-contributory and tax-free. Furthermore, it is not linked to a person’s ability to work, it is based upon the practical effects of a condition on a person’s life rather than the condition itself.

The assessments carried out by PIP assessors are in place to record the impact a condition has on daily living for example, if an individual is able to prepare their own meals or manage their own medication. These assessments in theory, should be designed to gather as much accurate information as possible about the effects of a condition on a person’s life. The process should also take into account the varying degrees of conditions and wide variety of symptoms.

I have heard many detailed accounts from constituents who suffer from conditions where symptoms are difficult to assess due to their sporadic nature and varying degrees of severity. For example, an individual suffering from a neurological condition may be able to perform most regular daily activities on a good day however, on a bad day they may be unable to get out of bed. It is pertinent that these types of conditions are correctly recorded by PIP assessors. Unfortunately, many of my constituents have found that this is not the case. They are being told that they do not qualify for PIP or receive a reduced amount because their assessment has been on one of their ‘good days’ or the assessor has recorded that they can in fact perform tasks – not noting that they can’t when their symptoms flair up.

The Department of Work and Pensions have recently stated that all health professionals undertaking assessments on behalf of DWP must be registered practitioners for example, an occupational therapist or a physiotherapist. The Department also stated that all healthcare professionals receive training in disability analysis. Given that the number of appeals and Mandatory Reconsiderations is so high, I feel this calls in to question the accuracy of the information being recorded by assessors at the first point of contact thus suggesting failings in the training being given to assessors.

I believe the Department of Work and Pensions need to make significant improvements to the way the current system operates. They have a responsibility to protect the individuals who are going through the process of applying for PIP from ‘slipping through the cracks’ or from their needs being unfairly and inaccurately assessed. I have recently raised written questions to the Department of Work and Pensions about PIP processes in order to obtain more information about the current system. I plan to continue to hold the Department of Work and Pensions to account and highlight the issues I feel need addressed by the Department in order to hopefully evoke much needed improvement in the service received by constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and throughout the rest of the UK.

 

You can read my written questions on this issue here: https://goo.gl/JiOm0x