Everyone wants a law covering assistance dogs for people with visual and other disabilities, but with caveats. On the one hand, the Department of Road Transport wants these dogs to wear muzzles. On the other, leisure establishments are asking to retain the right to refuse entry to the dog, and by extension to the person accompanying it. At the same time, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Veterinary Services do not wish to assume responsibility as the competent authority that would certify assistance dog training schools, as provided for in the bill submitted by Green Party MP Charalambos Theopemptou.
Presenting the bill, Charalambos Theopemptou reiterated that Cyprus has a serious legislative gap regarding the use of assistance dogs by persons with disabilities. As he stated, people who need an assistance dog are currently forced to pay thousands of euros, mainly due to the need for certification and training abroad. As a result, the number of people in Cyprus with assistance dogs can be counted on one hand. The aim of the proposal, according to its sponsor, is to make it possible for assistance dogs to be trained and certified in Cyprus under specific conditions, thereby reducing the financial burden on persons with disabilities.
Who will be the competent authority?
The discussion focused on the issue of the competent authority. According to the bill, the competent authority would be responsible for licensing and supervising assistance dog training schools, maintaining a registry of certified dogs and handlers, and monitoring the implementation of the relevant provisions.
The Ministry of Agriculture and the Veterinary Services made it clear that the proposal does not fall within their responsibilities, arguing that their role is limited to animal health and welfare. “It does not mean that wherever there is a law that mentions animals, the Veterinary Services must automatically be the competent authority,” said the Director of Veterinary Services, Christodoulos Pippis. This position prompted a reaction from Charalambos Theopemptou, who reminded those present that under the Dogs Law, the Veterinary Services are involved in overseeing its implementation. In response, the Director of Veterinary Services said that under the same law, the competent authorities are the local authorities.
At this point, the Union of Municipalities intervened. Its representative, Christodoulos Drousias, clarified that the responsibilities of municipalities under the Dogs Law concern issues such as dog ownership licensing, stray dog management and compliance with basic rules. He stressed that the proposal concerning assistance dogs relates to a different subject matter and requires a central competent authority.
The Legal Service raised the need to clarify the competent authority and also raised issues of civil liability and insurance. It further warned of a potential risk of unconstitutionality due to the cost of implementing the proposed law.
The Department of Road Transport wants muzzles
Strong reactions were triggered by the proposal of the Department of Road Transport regarding access for assistance dogs to taxis and tourist buses. In this context, it proposed that dogs be required to wear a leash and a muzzle, citing limited space and possible issues related to allergies affecting drivers or passengers.
The proposal was rejected by MPs, including Committee Chair Eirini Charalambidou and Alexandra Attalidou, as well as by the sponsor of the bill, who stressed that these are specially trained dogs and that the use of muzzles is not provided for internationally, except in Greece.
Leisure establishments: Optional access
Reactions were also recorded regarding access to catering and leisure venues. The Secretary General of the Association of Leisure Centre Owners, Fanos Leventis, proposed that optional criteria be introduced so that only establishments that wish to do so would host assistance dogs.
This position was rejected by Paola Frantzi, representative of KYSOA, who made it clear that access for persons with disabilities cannot be a matter of choice. Similar reactions came from MPs, who stressed that such an approach constitutes discrimination. The discussion in the Committee on Human Rights will continue at a subsequent meeting, with the participation of additional affected bodies.