Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill — New Clause 3 — Dog Control Notices — 15 Oct 2013 at 16:15
Julian Huppert MP, Cambridge voted against introducing Dog Control Notices and against requiring the microchipping of certain dogs subject to such notices.
The majority of MPs voted against introducing Dog Control Notices and against requiring the microchipping of certain dogs subject to such notices.
MPs were considering the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The motion rejected in this vote was:
- That the clause be read a Second time.
The rejected clause in question began:
- Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice
The clause went on to detail the provisions relating to the notices; which included requiring dogs subject to actions under such a notice to be microchipped.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (now an Act)
-  Rejected New Clause 3 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill — Dog control notices, Official Record, House of Commons, 15 October 2013
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||260 (+1 tell)||0||0||85.6%|
|Lab||0||228 (+2 tell)||0||89.1%|
|LDem||48 (+1 tell)||0||0||87.5%|