Reconnect Town and Country and you begin to Rebuild Broken Britain

I'm amazed that so few have raised this issue so far…

My idea is to reclassify former railway alignments under a new land classification category, using the United States' "Rail Bank" system as our model, and implement a planning moratorium protecting these potentially vital future transport corridors from the kind of cheap, ill-thought out and economically stagnant housing and commercial retail-park/strip-mall type developments we have seen under both the Tory and Labour administrations of the last 30 years.

Empower and financially incentivise local communities and rail companies to allow them to bring back those lines that were closed as being uneconomic under the Beeching Axe but which would now clearly serve a vital social and economic purpose for all those communities through which they pass.

Rail reopening is subject to so many planning restrictions… whilst the purchase and development of railway land is so simple for large Corporate developers who have no interest in retaining the former alignments for future transport links to be restored.

This situation must be reversed. It must be HARD for such potentially vital transport corridors to be disposed of! It must be made EASIER for planning authorities to turn away developers, and they should be encouraged to do so, unless that developer includes the preservation of the alignment within their plans.

In nearly every instance, the power to re-open lines lies with central government and (yet another quango) the SRA. Again, this situation must be reversed. This must in many, if not most cases be a local decision, for the local community whom the reopened line would serve.

Finally, the Coalition should publicly recognise that schemes focused on prising motorists away from their vehicles cannot simply focus on the bicycle and cycle lanes as an alternative.

Young children cannot cycle 10 miles into school, OAP's and those with disabilities cannot cycle 10 miles into town and ordinary Mums and Dads can't do a day's shopping with the family and cycle 10 miles back home carrying 10 bags.

If you want us out of our cars, and if you feel that buses are slow and unpleasant and clog up the roads even more… then good quality, frequent and reliable suburban and rural light rail services are your answer.

Likewise, you cannot transfer the vast amounts of freight that travel by road, away from lorries and onto bicycles. If we want to see less freight travel by road, again, rail is the only real answer.

Why is this idea important?

I'm amazed that so few have raised this issue so far…

My idea is to reclassify former railway alignments under a new land classification category, using the United States' "Rail Bank" system as our model, and implement a planning moratorium protecting these potentially vital future transport corridors from the kind of cheap, ill-thought out and economically stagnant housing and commercial retail-park/strip-mall type developments we have seen under both the Tory and Labour administrations of the last 30 years.

Empower and financially incentivise local communities and rail companies to allow them to bring back those lines that were closed as being uneconomic under the Beeching Axe but which would now clearly serve a vital social and economic purpose for all those communities through which they pass.

Rail reopening is subject to so many planning restrictions… whilst the purchase and development of railway land is so simple for large Corporate developers who have no interest in retaining the former alignments for future transport links to be restored.

This situation must be reversed. It must be HARD for such potentially vital transport corridors to be disposed of! It must be made EASIER for planning authorities to turn away developers, and they should be encouraged to do so, unless that developer includes the preservation of the alignment within their plans.

In nearly every instance, the power to re-open lines lies with central government and (yet another quango) the SRA. Again, this situation must be reversed. This must in many, if not most cases be a local decision, for the local community whom the reopened line would serve.

Finally, the Coalition should publicly recognise that schemes focused on prising motorists away from their vehicles cannot simply focus on the bicycle and cycle lanes as an alternative.

Young children cannot cycle 10 miles into school, OAP's and those with disabilities cannot cycle 10 miles into town and ordinary Mums and Dads can't do a day's shopping with the family and cycle 10 miles back home carrying 10 bags.

If you want us out of our cars, and if you feel that buses are slow and unpleasant and clog up the roads even more… then good quality, frequent and reliable suburban and rural light rail services are your answer.

Likewise, you cannot transfer the vast amounts of freight that travel by road, away from lorries and onto bicycles. If we want to see less freight travel by road, again, rail is the only real answer.

Repeal all restrictions on what farmers grow

Remove restrictions that prevent farmers from deciding which crop they grow.

I'm not talking about secondary laws such as insecticides.  If a plant is legal and a farmer can grow it and sell it, remove any laws or regulations (such as quotas) that prevent them from earning a living.

Why is this idea important?

Remove restrictions that prevent farmers from deciding which crop they grow.

I'm not talking about secondary laws such as insecticides.  If a plant is legal and a farmer can grow it and sell it, remove any laws or regulations (such as quotas) that prevent them from earning a living.

Change the organic farming system

Currently we have an artificial division between organic and non-organic farmers. Organic farmers pay to be certified that they do not use chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The have to deal with a lot of paperwork and undergo inspections. Instead we should require farms using chemical fertilisers and pesticides to be registered, keep records of how such things are used/disposed of, pay for training in their correct use and disposal.

Why is this idea important?

Currently we have an artificial division between organic and non-organic farmers. Organic farmers pay to be certified that they do not use chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The have to deal with a lot of paperwork and undergo inspections. Instead we should require farms using chemical fertilisers and pesticides to be registered, keep records of how such things are used/disposed of, pay for training in their correct use and disposal.

Repeal the EU Directive on Food Supplements

The EU directive on food supplements took away many vitamins, mineral and supplements from our shelves.

It is known by science that our modern diets are too low in nutrients and that this causes disease.

Allow us to make our own choces about what we buy for our own health with our own money and repeal this directive.

 

Why is this idea important?

The EU directive on food supplements took away many vitamins, mineral and supplements from our shelves.

It is known by science that our modern diets are too low in nutrients and that this causes disease.

Allow us to make our own choces about what we buy for our own health with our own money and repeal this directive.

 

The right to roam

There is no need for the right to roam. 

We have more than enough footpaths and open access areas in this country of ours and any areas that do not have footpaths should be left for the wildlife and not for human beings to disturb that wildlife.

Why is this idea important?

There is no need for the right to roam. 

We have more than enough footpaths and open access areas in this country of ours and any areas that do not have footpaths should be left for the wildlife and not for human beings to disturb that wildlife.

Relax ear tag requirements for pet/non breeding livestock

Ear tags are used to identify livestock. All livestock must now have 2 eartags, sheep one with a microchip in.   Ear tags get pulled out with depressing regularity and even worse cause much damage to ears.  Owners are fined if animals do not have the correct tags.

If I went to my livestock and slit their ears with a knife I would rightly be fined (or worse) for animal cruelty.  But the effect of putting in eartags is not dissimilar. Animals put their head through fences or into bushes and rip the tag out.

There would be outrage if tags were suggested for dogs and cats.

Whereas I appreciate the use of identifying animals going into the food chain I do not see the point of disfiguring pet and non breeding stock.

Why can we not have the option of microchipping the animal (not the eartag) for identification purposes.  This provides a permanent identification without animal cruelty.

I would like to see this option for all livestock.  Markets and abbatoirs must have microchip readers and many farmers also have them.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Ear tags are used to identify livestock. All livestock must now have 2 eartags, sheep one with a microchip in.   Ear tags get pulled out with depressing regularity and even worse cause much damage to ears.  Owners are fined if animals do not have the correct tags.

If I went to my livestock and slit their ears with a knife I would rightly be fined (or worse) for animal cruelty.  But the effect of putting in eartags is not dissimilar. Animals put their head through fences or into bushes and rip the tag out.

There would be outrage if tags were suggested for dogs and cats.

Whereas I appreciate the use of identifying animals going into the food chain I do not see the point of disfiguring pet and non breeding stock.

Why can we not have the option of microchipping the animal (not the eartag) for identification purposes.  This provides a permanent identification without animal cruelty.

I would like to see this option for all livestock.  Markets and abbatoirs must have microchip readers and many farmers also have them.

 

 

 

Fines for not Recycling Properly

I HATE the fines one can get for not recycling properly. It is we consumers that  buy the food, we should not be forced to recycle and then threatened with a fine if we make a mistake. That is absolutely ludicrous. And its a hassle.

 

In fact, we should be getting paid for doing this type of labour. We already pay council taxes for our rubbish to be done away with and now the councils want to cheat us out of MORE money. Recycling should definitely be encouraged, but the government should look to encourage people to do this, like, offering coupons or something to make people want to do it.

Why is this idea important?

I HATE the fines one can get for not recycling properly. It is we consumers that  buy the food, we should not be forced to recycle and then threatened with a fine if we make a mistake. That is absolutely ludicrous. And its a hassle.

 

In fact, we should be getting paid for doing this type of labour. We already pay council taxes for our rubbish to be done away with and now the councils want to cheat us out of MORE money. Recycling should definitely be encouraged, but the government should look to encourage people to do this, like, offering coupons or something to make people want to do it.

MR. M. A. NICHOLLS. The right to roam insurance.

My surgestion is about the right to roam. My post code is Scottish but I live in England, This is IMPORTANT as different contries have different laws. I  have a small farm in England ,and several footpaths and bridal ways run through it. I agree that people should have the privelage to walk around and see the beauty of the contry side . However I appose that I have to pay nearly £100 in insurance for other people to do this, + anohter 1% in insurance tax increase to be implemented after the June budget. If people whish to do this they should be made to take out their own insurance. I should not be liable for the county councils footpaths. To call out a rescue helecopter would cost several hundred if not thousand of £s to launch and rescue. Most other types of out door enjoyment like sailing , it would be the responsibility of the boats owner to take out their own insurance. Why not hikers? , Today has become an American claim and sue culture, you see many adverts on the tv surgesting you should . Say if I was in somebodies garden stealing apples from their tree and fell and hurt my self , nothing would be done. However if someone was blackberry picking on my land and the same happened they would try sue me .THIS LAW IS A FARCE. In fact the only place you can be done for tresspassing in England is on a military base or a railway line which used to encure a 40 shillings fine.

 

BY the way LIB DEMS what happened to your fair, Local income tax system to replace the council tax, I did not hear anything about it in the run up to the general elections. Have you ditched the idea.

Why is this idea important?

My surgestion is about the right to roam. My post code is Scottish but I live in England, This is IMPORTANT as different contries have different laws. I  have a small farm in England ,and several footpaths and bridal ways run through it. I agree that people should have the privelage to walk around and see the beauty of the contry side . However I appose that I have to pay nearly £100 in insurance for other people to do this, + anohter 1% in insurance tax increase to be implemented after the June budget. If people whish to do this they should be made to take out their own insurance. I should not be liable for the county councils footpaths. To call out a rescue helecopter would cost several hundred if not thousand of £s to launch and rescue. Most other types of out door enjoyment like sailing , it would be the responsibility of the boats owner to take out their own insurance. Why not hikers? , Today has become an American claim and sue culture, you see many adverts on the tv surgesting you should . Say if I was in somebodies garden stealing apples from their tree and fell and hurt my self , nothing would be done. However if someone was blackberry picking on my land and the same happened they would try sue me .THIS LAW IS A FARCE. In fact the only place you can be done for tresspassing in England is on a military base or a railway line which used to encure a 40 shillings fine.

 

BY the way LIB DEMS what happened to your fair, Local income tax system to replace the council tax, I did not hear anything about it in the run up to the general elections. Have you ditched the idea.

Bovine TB testing records checking

Why is it necessary to have two government organizations and your local Veterinary practice to check your herd inoculation records? Currently my small herd inoculation records are liable to be checked by the State Veterinary Service, the Office for Fair Trading and our own Vets.

Preposterous!  Surely a form to fill in when our Vet visits and inoculates is sufficient??

Why is this idea important?

Why is it necessary to have two government organizations and your local Veterinary practice to check your herd inoculation records? Currently my small herd inoculation records are liable to be checked by the State Veterinary Service, the Office for Fair Trading and our own Vets.

Preposterous!  Surely a form to fill in when our Vet visits and inoculates is sufficient??

Withdraw from EU common agricultural policy

The taxpayer subsidy of agriculture in the UK (part of CAP) costs a fortune and is largely pointless. The single farm payment is all that keeps many farmers afloat and the agricultural sector a a whole just about breaks even overall. Why continue to make farmers public servants when producing agricultural commodities is much cheaper in other countries?

The farmer subsidy is a form of protectionism, allowing our inefficient farmers to compete with countries with an absolute and comparative advantage in agriucultural produce production. This is damaging to the UK taxpayer (subsidy payment), the UK consumer (higher prices, less benefit of trade), and third world farmers with a comparative advantage over the UK in agriculture (inability to trade their way out of poverty thanks to our subsidies).

It is disgusting that a conservative/liberal government has no plan to withdraw from this most vulgar, damaging and costly form of protectionism.

Why is this idea important?

The taxpayer subsidy of agriculture in the UK (part of CAP) costs a fortune and is largely pointless. The single farm payment is all that keeps many farmers afloat and the agricultural sector a a whole just about breaks even overall. Why continue to make farmers public servants when producing agricultural commodities is much cheaper in other countries?

The farmer subsidy is a form of protectionism, allowing our inefficient farmers to compete with countries with an absolute and comparative advantage in agriucultural produce production. This is damaging to the UK taxpayer (subsidy payment), the UK consumer (higher prices, less benefit of trade), and third world farmers with a comparative advantage over the UK in agriculture (inability to trade their way out of poverty thanks to our subsidies).

It is disgusting that a conservative/liberal government has no plan to withdraw from this most vulgar, damaging and costly form of protectionism.

Abolish crab licence fees

The crab licence fee reduces new comers to the industry.

This weaknes the  economy threatens the industry and encourages high tax payers not jobs.

We should remove this fee not the licence.

We could ecourage the rule of thumb guide to crab fishing and remove this uneccasary fee.

This would encourage individuals to register with the fishing industry and local harbour.

Why is this idea important?

The crab licence fee reduces new comers to the industry.

This weaknes the  economy threatens the industry and encourages high tax payers not jobs.

We should remove this fee not the licence.

We could ecourage the rule of thumb guide to crab fishing and remove this uneccasary fee.

This would encourage individuals to register with the fishing industry and local harbour.

disallow all derivatives on food.

http://johannhari.com//2010/07/02/how-goldman-sachs-gambling-on-starving-the-worlds-poor-and-won

"For over a century, farmers in wealthy countries have been able to engage in a process where they protect themselves against risk. Farmer Giles can agree in January to sell his crop to a trader in August at a fixed price. If he has a great summer and the global price is high, he'll lose some cash, but if there's a lousy summer or the price collapses, he'll do well from the deal. When this process was tightly regulated and only companies with a direct interest in the field could get involved, it worked well.

Then, through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into 'derivatives' that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in "food speculation" was born."

Why is this idea important?

http://johannhari.com//2010/07/02/how-goldman-sachs-gambling-on-starving-the-worlds-poor-and-won

"For over a century, farmers in wealthy countries have been able to engage in a process where they protect themselves against risk. Farmer Giles can agree in January to sell his crop to a trader in August at a fixed price. If he has a great summer and the global price is high, he'll lose some cash, but if there's a lousy summer or the price collapses, he'll do well from the deal. When this process was tightly regulated and only companies with a direct interest in the field could get involved, it worked well.

Then, through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into 'derivatives' that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in "food speculation" was born."

Massive expenditure on protecting endangered species which are not threatened

Developers and construction companies are spending inordinate amounts of money on the protection of 'endangered' species which are not endangered as a consequence of planning approval. The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 is the main piece of law. The fact is that the badger is still classed as a protected species (the Protection of Badgers Act 1992). As we know these creatures are not rare now and have setts everywhere and this can hold up developers for months for anything from a new motorway down to a new housing estate. It is costing millions in delay & disruption and feathering the nests of environmental consultants including English Nature with no added value to the environment. In the case of great crested newts. This is classified as a rare species in Europe because they are all in the UK. You can bet you're bottom dollar that where you find a pond the enviromentalists will find at least one newt. It only takes one newt egg to be found to create a scenario of severe delay & cost as the whole machinery of complying with the 'Newt Licence' from English Nature is enacted. You could build a wildlife park for newts for the money it is costing as the result of finding one newt egg.

Why is this idea important?

Developers and construction companies are spending inordinate amounts of money on the protection of 'endangered' species which are not endangered as a consequence of planning approval. The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 is the main piece of law. The fact is that the badger is still classed as a protected species (the Protection of Badgers Act 1992). As we know these creatures are not rare now and have setts everywhere and this can hold up developers for months for anything from a new motorway down to a new housing estate. It is costing millions in delay & disruption and feathering the nests of environmental consultants including English Nature with no added value to the environment. In the case of great crested newts. This is classified as a rare species in Europe because they are all in the UK. You can bet you're bottom dollar that where you find a pond the enviromentalists will find at least one newt. It only takes one newt egg to be found to create a scenario of severe delay & cost as the whole machinery of complying with the 'Newt Licence' from English Nature is enacted. You could build a wildlife park for newts for the money it is costing as the result of finding one newt egg.

Dromedaries and Bactrians

Why is camel ownership restricted under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act? Most camel breeds are no more wild than domestic cattle, and far less dangerous than most bulls, yet this largely placid breed is among lions, tigers and crocodiles.  Even if you can get a lical authority permit to own a dromedary or bactrian, councils will impose a raft of requirements which will generally preclude you taking it anywhere. It's absurd.

Why is this idea important?

Why is camel ownership restricted under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act? Most camel breeds are no more wild than domestic cattle, and far less dangerous than most bulls, yet this largely placid breed is among lions, tigers and crocodiles.  Even if you can get a lical authority permit to own a dromedary or bactrian, councils will impose a raft of requirements which will generally preclude you taking it anywhere. It's absurd.

remove movement ban on livestock

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Why is this idea important?

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

reinstate 5 mile rule on sheep movements in england

wales  and scotland kept the rule to simplify  within buisness local movements–the  new rules do nothing for diseaes control cos all such movments would be within a control zone—the english  movement book published just before the rules were announced  was designed to accomadate this red tape easing rule—but DEFRA chose to gold pate it _–its stupidity  considering the pressure already on commercial producers —as is most of the new electronic tagging rules —which introduce no better traceability than did conventional tags—just more work and more expense—at 2004 prices which we may return to –in many cases the tag will cost more than the sheep is worth .The  industry is collapsing in the face of the new regulations—certainly this GOLD PLATING only in england —putting us at a dis advantage to scotland wales and ireland is undefenceable  —–HELP–yours dougie watkin

 

Why is this idea important?

wales  and scotland kept the rule to simplify  within buisness local movements–the  new rules do nothing for diseaes control cos all such movments would be within a control zone—the english  movement book published just before the rules were announced  was designed to accomadate this red tape easing rule—but DEFRA chose to gold pate it _–its stupidity  considering the pressure already on commercial producers —as is most of the new electronic tagging rules —which introduce no better traceability than did conventional tags—just more work and more expense—at 2004 prices which we may return to –in many cases the tag will cost more than the sheep is worth .The  industry is collapsing in the face of the new regulations—certainly this GOLD PLATING only in england —putting us at a dis advantage to scotland wales and ireland is undefenceable  —–HELP–yours dougie watkin

 

SIMPLIFY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

 




OVERLAPPING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

 

Britain has much useful legislation to protect the environment such as National parks, AONB’s, National Nature Reserves and urban Conservation Areas.

 

The administration of these areas has to some extent been undermined and made unnecessarily bureaucratic by successive overlapping designations and regulations, such as Site of Special Scientific Interest. SSSI’s: Special Protection Areas, SPA and Ramsar sites. Much of this over-regulation was suggested (demanded?) by the European Union and consolidated in the CRoW Act 2000 that brought in heavy-handed regulations on public access and directives such as that for Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA).

 

There is an urgent need to look at ways of simplifying this legislative burden without losing the original good intentions!

Why is this idea important?

 




OVERLAPPING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

 

Britain has much useful legislation to protect the environment such as National parks, AONB’s, National Nature Reserves and urban Conservation Areas.

 

The administration of these areas has to some extent been undermined and made unnecessarily bureaucratic by successive overlapping designations and regulations, such as Site of Special Scientific Interest. SSSI’s: Special Protection Areas, SPA and Ramsar sites. Much of this over-regulation was suggested (demanded?) by the European Union and consolidated in the CRoW Act 2000 that brought in heavy-handed regulations on public access and directives such as that for Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA).

 

There is an urgent need to look at ways of simplifying this legislative burden without losing the original good intentions!

Relax the Animal Byproduct Regulations

Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) 2005 – deal with animal by-products, including the waste disposal industry, the animal feed industry, slaughterhouse operators, tanneries, farmers, food manufacturing premises, catering outlets, food retailers and zoos are affected by the ABPR. The legislation causes a major barrier to community groups who want to start their own community composting scheme, as such it means multinational giant foreign firms come in and monopolise the composting industry with high tech solutions which require the waste to be collected and hauled vast distances in deisel fueled vehicles at public expense, most of this waste could be dealt with on small scale local compost heaps on parks, gardens, allotments, farms etc, but there is so much environmental and safety regulations in the way despite composting being inherantly a simple and low risk activity which helps create nice soil improver for free and reduces organic waste thus helping save the planet.  

 

speak to defra and the community composting association they will vouch for this!

Why is this idea important?

Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) 2005 – deal with animal by-products, including the waste disposal industry, the animal feed industry, slaughterhouse operators, tanneries, farmers, food manufacturing premises, catering outlets, food retailers and zoos are affected by the ABPR. The legislation causes a major barrier to community groups who want to start their own community composting scheme, as such it means multinational giant foreign firms come in and monopolise the composting industry with high tech solutions which require the waste to be collected and hauled vast distances in deisel fueled vehicles at public expense, most of this waste could be dealt with on small scale local compost heaps on parks, gardens, allotments, farms etc, but there is so much environmental and safety regulations in the way despite composting being inherantly a simple and low risk activity which helps create nice soil improver for free and reduces organic waste thus helping save the planet.  

 

speak to defra and the community composting association they will vouch for this!

Seagull culling

The time has come for any legislation for the protection of Seagulls to be withdrawn.  These animals are vermin and can be categorised as similar to rats.  They prey on adults and children and have no hesitation in attacking them in order to steal food which, quite often, is being eaten. and It not not uncommon for injuries to be caused, sometimes serious. During the nesting season, they can be even more dangerous by unprovoked attacks on passers by.  They encourage rats by breaking open waste sacks and strewing rubbish around.  Other E.U. countires do not have this problem as there are no restrictions on culling. These creatures are increasing year by year and encroaching from their normal habiitat, the sea, onto the land where food is easier to obtain.  The removal of the law which prohibits culling is essential.

Why is this idea important?

The time has come for any legislation for the protection of Seagulls to be withdrawn.  These animals are vermin and can be categorised as similar to rats.  They prey on adults and children and have no hesitation in attacking them in order to steal food which, quite often, is being eaten. and It not not uncommon for injuries to be caused, sometimes serious. During the nesting season, they can be even more dangerous by unprovoked attacks on passers by.  They encourage rats by breaking open waste sacks and strewing rubbish around.  Other E.U. countires do not have this problem as there are no restrictions on culling. These creatures are increasing year by year and encroaching from their normal habiitat, the sea, onto the land where food is easier to obtain.  The removal of the law which prohibits culling is essential.

Make breeders responsible for who they are selling their dogs to

Most rescue centres have a database telling them what dog goes to live where, and technically keeps ownership of the dog so they can trace it should they so wish throughout it's lifetime, the adopter just looks after it.  so should the person move house or sell the dog on the centre should be told of the dogs new location.  Breeders should be made to do the same thing.

If a breeder sells a dog they should be responsible for the home it goes to, make sure it is micro chipped and keep a log of the dogs location.  This will 1 – put people off of breeding dogs just for money as they will need to ensure their dog doesn't end up with irresponsible owners, 2 – if breeders are held partly responsible they will ensure their dogs go to good homes that will train them hopefully having a knock on effect of less dogs in rescue and on the streets.

Responsible breeders have a returns policy whereby should you need to rehome the dog at any point throughout it's lifetime it must be returned to the breeder, again meaning less dogs in rescue if the owners comply.

If all dogs have to have a record book with the breeder detailing their breed, markings and microchip number along with their new home details (new owners will need to provide proof of ID) and this is logged with say the kennel club (if they can be responsible enough) we can keep a much closer eye on what dogs are being bred and where they are being sold to without penalising those responsible owners.

Why is this idea important?

Most rescue centres have a database telling them what dog goes to live where, and technically keeps ownership of the dog so they can trace it should they so wish throughout it's lifetime, the adopter just looks after it.  so should the person move house or sell the dog on the centre should be told of the dogs new location.  Breeders should be made to do the same thing.

If a breeder sells a dog they should be responsible for the home it goes to, make sure it is micro chipped and keep a log of the dogs location.  This will 1 – put people off of breeding dogs just for money as they will need to ensure their dog doesn't end up with irresponsible owners, 2 – if breeders are held partly responsible they will ensure their dogs go to good homes that will train them hopefully having a knock on effect of less dogs in rescue and on the streets.

Responsible breeders have a returns policy whereby should you need to rehome the dog at any point throughout it's lifetime it must be returned to the breeder, again meaning less dogs in rescue if the owners comply.

If all dogs have to have a record book with the breeder detailing their breed, markings and microchip number along with their new home details (new owners will need to provide proof of ID) and this is logged with say the kennel club (if they can be responsible enough) we can keep a much closer eye on what dogs are being bred and where they are being sold to without penalising those responsible owners.