A STANDOFF has emerged between the President and Parliament over amendments to the law concerning ownership of dogs, with the bill bouncing back and forth the Presidential Palace and the House like a ping-pong ball.
In late June, President Tassos Papadopoulos sent the dog law amendments back to Parliament, highlighting two ‘unconstitutional’ areas that needed to be looked into. But this week Parliament voted by majority to send the amendments, as is, back to Papadopoulos, whose signature is essential for a law to come into force.
The law, passed last year, aimed to make the treatment of dogs more humane. But under lobbying from hunters, the House Agriculture Committee drafted a number of amendments to it.
Disgruntled hunters want to scrap the £10 levy for the use of hunting dogs and the obligation of getting a death certificate from a vet in the event their animal died.
The particular provision was designed to stamp out cruelty to animals, as hunters have been known to shoot their dogs when they do not ‘perform’ up to scratch.
On top of that, hunters want a cut in the levy for dog possession: from £15 to £12 for a male dog, and to £12 from the current £25 for a bitch.
Hunters demand the same levy, £12, to be applicable for spayed bitches instead of £15.
They also want dogs to be tattooed or chipped at the age of six months instead of three, as the law provides – a provision designed to control the number of strays.
Last August a spat broke out after Green deputy George Perdikis wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House charging that members of the Agriculture Committee were trying to pass amendments to the canine law through the back door.
The President argues that amendments to the various levies are unconstitutional because the House does not have the power to reduce government revenue when relevant legislation has already been passed.
However, AKEL deputy Georgios Hadjigeorgiou yesterday told the Cyprus Mail that this conundrum could be easily resolved if the President finally decided to approve the amendments and sign them. This was despite the fact the amendments might be unconstitutional, which Hadjigeorgiou admitted they were.
There are now two scenarios: first, the President caves in and signs an unconstitutional law, a practice which in itself raises a few eyebrows; second, neither the President nor Parliament stand down, meaning the bill could theoretically be shuffled back and forth ad infinitum.
“I doubt it’ll get to that,” Hadjigeorgiou said with some confidence.
“Usually these things get settled with the President signing,” he added.
