DOCSLIB.ORG

Dog Control and Welfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dog Control and Welfare House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Dog Control and Welfare Written Evidence Only those submissions, written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry Dog Control and Welfare are included. List of written evidence 1 Linda Buxton 4 2 Claire Horton-Bussey 6 3 Jolanda Hill DVM, MRCVS 7 4 Animal Wardens 8 5 Anna-Lisa Browne, The Dog House 10 6 Carol Fowler, Dog Health Campaigner 12 7 Local Government Association 16 8 Janetta Bensouilah 19 9 The Northern Centre for Canine Behaviour 20 10 Diane Foreman 24 11 Essex Animal Welfare Forum (EAWF) 26 12 Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council 29 13 Chris Laurence 32 14 Countryside Alliance 36 15 National Dog Warden Association 41 16 Mr & Mrs Sainsbury 44 17 Mrs Louise Haig 49 18 Anonymous Contributor 50 19 Maria Burke 51 20 Mary Davis 52 21 Sophie Zoghbi 53 22 Barbara Sheringham 55 23 Animal Behaviour and Training Council 56 24 RSPCA 58 25 David Ward 63 26 Gary Miller 65 27 Angela Kennedy 66 28 Jaqi Bunn 70 29 Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society (DLPS) 73 30 Felicity Lynch 75 31 Mandy Dumont 77 32 Blue Cross 78 33 Canine Action UK 82 34 Anonymous Contributor 84 35 Simon JR Adams BSc. BVMS. MRCVS. Veterinarian and Welfare Adviser 86 36 Naomi Mignone 91 37 Greater Merseyside Dog Welfare Forum 92 38 Dr Kasia Szpakowska 94 39 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 96 40 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association 97 41 Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) 101 42 British Association for Shooting and Conservation 103 42 Supplementary British Association for Shooting and Conservation 104 43 TailwaggersClub Trust 105 44 Care and Respect Includes All Dogs Campaign 108 45 Dog's Trust 114 46 National Animal Welfare Trust 118 47 Laraine Malvern 121 48 Puppy Love Campaigns 123 49 Patricia James 125 50 British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association 128 51 Association of Chief Police Officers 133 52 Amanda Roche 139 53 The Kennel Club 140 54 COAPE Association of Pet Behaviourists and Trainers 145 55 Defra 151,238 56 Royal Veterinary College’s VetCompass Project 153 57 Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue Ltd 156 58 Philippa Robinson 160 59 Emma Judson 162 60 Richard Zakss 165 61 Jessica Thomas-Day 167 62 City Remembrancer 169 63 Frances Ellis and Margaret Brady, Animals in Need 171 64 Battersea Dogs & Cats Home 174 65 Charlotte Faulkner 182 66 Lucy Riggs 183 67 Miss Hayley Parr 184 68 Mayor of London 185 69 Anonymous Contributor 186 70 Wood Green, The Animals Charity 188 71 National Farmers Union (NFU) 191 72 Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding 195 73 Scottish Government 198 74 Minister for Agriculture & Rural Development Northern Ireland 202 75 Communication Workers Union (CWU) 211 76 Dogs Today Magazine 227 77 Stephan Toth 229 78 The Welsh Assembly 231 79 Barry Faust 232 80 David Ward 233 81 Dachshund Breed Council 234 4 Written evidence submitted by Linda Buxton, Leigh Dogs and Cats Home 1. Dog Control a) Is there a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation, and its enforcement, including that relating to dog attacks on people, livestock and pets? There is a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation and its enforcement - there needs to be much more information given to the general public about the legislation and also more actual use of the enforcement , at present although in place it only seem s to used when a serious incident occurs. The emphasis needs to be on educating the dog owning public and making them aware of the legislation maybe through the media. b) Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities? No - the problem is that a lot of the people who have status dogs will not comply and conform with any legislation, it should be law that these dogs should be neutered so that they are not able to breed with them. c) Will compulsory microchipping of puppies improve dog welfare and help prevent dog attacks at an affordable cost to dog owners? Should a dog licensing scheme also be considered? Compulsory microchipping of all puppies is a very good idea as it should make people more responsible for their dogs and their actions if they know that they will be accountable. However, I do not feel that it will prevent dog attacks. The problem with micro chipping is that when a dog changes hands the microchip details are not changed, the public need to be made aware that the ID chip details must be changed when they adopt a new pet and that ultimately the person who the dog is chipped to is the legal owner and responsible for the welfare of the dog. Dog Licensing is a very good idea used in conjunction with ID chipping, however licenses should be issued but suitably qualified persons who are specially trained end work in the welfare industry i.e. at animal homes & vet practices (similar to SQP for sale of Horse wormers; Dog Wormers etc). d) Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property? No e) Are Defra’s proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious? Yes f) Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime? No - local authorities do but the Police and Welfare organisations do not tend to get involved with stray dogs usually because of budget constraints. 2. Dog Welfare 5 a) Has the response by dog breeders and the veterinary profession been effective? No - the problem is that anybody can breed a litter of pups from any bitch over 6 months of age without being registered as a dog breeder. This is the most likely avenue breeding illegal dogs and irresponsible dog breeding as they are not rehomed correctly thus exalting all the other problems. b) What actions should Government take to address these issues? Make it illegal for anybody to breed puppies - if a member of the public has a pregnant bitch it should be reported to the local authority wardens who could then visit them to give advice as necessary and make the puppies are ID chipped and suitably rehomed and also give advice about neutering. c) Are further controls required on dog breeders, including puppy farms, and those selling or importing dogs to ensure the welfare of bitches and puppies? If all puppies had be id chipped before leaving the breeder this would stop irresponsible breeders who don’t want to abide by rules and regulations and also keep track of all imported dogs and status dogs. It may also make it not cost effective for puppy farms to continue. The problem with all of the above is that we have to have a body that will police them otherwise it will all be a waste of time. It would not be difficult to set up a body to police it all but it needs to be done properly from the start with a suitable budget to enable it to be done efficiently. May 2012 6 Written evidence submitted by Claire Horton-Bussey Amongst many other threads that you will no doubt examine (puppy farmers, lack of health testing in pedigree dogs etc), backyard breeders really need to be regulated. There are so many people living on benefits or low incomes who see dog breeding as a nice little earner. You only have to look at all the local For Sale sites on Facebook or on Gumtree to see that people are breeding whatever they can get their hands on - cats, dogs, reptiles etc, even swapping breeding animals for games consoles etc. They have no concern for the animals they are breeding, do not health test etc, and no doubt do not pay tax on what they are earning! 7 Written evidence submitted by Jolanda Hill DVM, MRCVS I would like to bring to your attention that microchipping all dogs (and cats) is a good measure, provided that at the time of microchipping the true name and address of the owner is being submitted on the microchip registration. At this time, nobody checks if the details the owner submits to register their pet's microchip are valid. Especially people who keep animals for the wrong reasons (e.g. dog fighting etc) would, when microchipping becomes compulsory, avoid all consequences by submitting wrong contact details. Apart from the initial microchipping registration it is sad to see when we do try to reunite an animal with its owner, how often the contact details relating to the microchip have not been kept up-to-date, thereby almost completely negating the advantage of having a microchip placed in the first place. If microchipping vets and others have to do more in depth verifying of the submitted details for registering a chip, then I would suggest you prepare 'best practice' guidelines on how to implement this. If we can't make sure the chip is registered to a valid owner and address, then all efforts and costs to implement this scheme will be wasted. Quite possibly somebody in the committee had realised this already, in which case apologies for wasting your time. May 2012 8 Written evidence submitted by Animal Wardens Ltd Animal Wardens We get involved with 25,000 found, lost, straying, abandoned, dumped and dangerous dogs each year. Dogs Deserve Better We believe as a principle: dog ownership should carry enforceable responsibilities that are enforced by Government Agencies who have a duty to do so.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • St Albans City Archive Catalogues - Transcription
    St Albans City Archive Catalogues - Transcription Introduction The St Albans City Archive is one of the main sources of primary material for anyone researching the history of the city. However, understanding what is in the archive is daunting as the key finding aid, the catalogue produced by William Le Hardy in the 1940s, does not match the standard of modern catalogues. Improvements are underway. The City Archive has been held at Hertfordshire Archives & Local Studies (HALS) in Hertford since the 1990s. HALS are currently engaged in an extensive project to improve access to its catalogues via the internet. The City Archive is part of this project but it is likely to be several years before the fully revised catalogue is available on-line. In light of this and with HALS’ agreement, the St Albans & Hertfordshire Architectural & Archaeological Society (SAHAAS) has opted to publish the following transcription of Le Hardy’s catalogue together with relevant material from the ‘Interim’ catalogue. (The latter represents a further deposit by St Albans City Council in the 1990s). For the benefit of SAHAAS members, most of whom live closer to St Albans than to Hertford, we have noted on the transcript the following additional information: 1. Microfilm numbers: much of the pre-1830 archive has been microfilmed. Copies of these films are held in the Local Studies filing cabinets at St Albans Central Library. (See column marked Microfilm/Book) 2. A transcription of the St Albans Borough Quarter Sessions Rolls, 1784-1820, was published by the Hertfordshire Record Society (HRS) in 1991. (See column marked Microfilm/Book) Finally, some of the items catalogued by Le Hardy were not subsequently deposited by the City Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Brief
    Research Brief New reports, bills and updates of latest research Parliamentary Library Research Service Department of Parliamentary Services ISSN 1836-7828 (Print) 1836-8050 (Online) Number 6 May 2010 Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 This Research Brief includes the following sections: Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 1. Second Reading Speech............................................................................................ 2 2. Background................................................................................................................. 2 3. The Act ....................................................................................................................... 5 4. The Bill........................................................................................................................ 7 5. Views of Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 11 6. Other Jurisdictions.................................................................................................... 14 References ................................................................................................................... 19 NB: Readers should note that this Research Brief was current at the time of its preparation prior to the conclusion of debate on the Bill by the Victorian Parliament. For further information please visit the Victorian Legislation
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs
    Crime Law Soc Change (2011) 55:405–420 DOI 10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Jennifer Maher & Harriet Pierpoint Published online: 21 April 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract Recent UK media reports and government responses evidence a rising concern over irresponsible dog ownership, particularly the use of so-called status or weapon dogs. Youth criminal and antisocial behaviour using these dogs has been widely reported in urban areas and associated with street-based youth groups, in particular, the growing phenomenon of UK youth gangs. This article reports on the findings and implications of a small-scale study, comprising interviews with 25 youths and seven animal welfare and youth practitioners, which aimed to identify the nature of animal use and abuse in youth groups and gangs. It found that over half of the youths belonged to a youth gang and the remainder a youth group, with the majority owning an animal which was most often a ‘status’ dog (e.g., bull breed/type). Analysis revealed that dogs were used mainly for socialising and companionship, protection and enhancing status. More than 20 types of animal abuse were described by youths and practitioners. Introduction Concern over youth ownership of so-called status, weapon or bling dogs has entered both the public and political domain in the United Kingdom [UK]. This is evident in: a) increased negative media attention on youth dog owners and ‘dangerous dogs’ [13, 40], b) increased reporting of youth’s dog fighting by the public to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA] [35], and c) current governmental discourse and policy which has led to—the development of the Metropolitan Police Status Dog Unit [SDU], a provision of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (s.35) prohibiting gangs using ‘status’ dogs in public, and proposals to J.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernising English Criminal Legislation 1267-1970
    Public Administration Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-517x E-ISSN 1927-5188 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising English Criminal Legislation 1267-1970 Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: April 2, 2017 Accepted: April 19, 2017 Online Published: April 27, 2017 doi:10.5539/par.v6n1p53 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/par.v6n1p53 1. INTRODUCTION English criminal - and criminal procedure - legislation is in a parlous state. Presently, there are some 286 Acts covering criminal law and criminal procedure with the former comprising c.155 Acts. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Judge CJ, in his book, The Safest Shield (2015), described the current volume of criminal legislation as 'suffocating'. 1 If one considers all legislation extant from 1267 - 1925 (see Appendix A) a considerable quantity comprises criminal law and criminal procedure - most of which is (likely) obsolete.2 Given this, the purpose of this article is to look at criminal legislation in the period 1267-1970 as well as criminal procedure legislation in the period 1267-1925. Its conclusions are simple: (a) the Law Commission should review all criminal legislation pre-1890 as well as a few pieces thereafter (see Appendix B). It should also review (likely) obsolete common law crimes (see Appendix C); (b) at the same time, the Ministry of Justice (or Home Office) should consolidate all criminal legislation post-1890 into 4 Crime Acts.3 These should deal with: (a) Sex crimes; (b) Public order crimes; (c) Crimes against the person; (d) Property and financial crimes (see 7).
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT VERSION 1.1 Guidance on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010
    DRAFT VERSION 1.1 Guidance on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 Ministerial Foreword The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring our communities are protected from dangerous dogs and we would support any sensible and practical measures that help achieve this. That is why we, along with all other parties, supported the measures contained in Christine Grahame’s Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament last year. We welcome the focus of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 ("the 2010 Act") in concentrating on the "deed not the breed" approach in tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Owning a dog brings many responsibilities for the dog owner and the 2010 Act is designed to highlight the responsibilities of dog owners by identifying out of control dogs at an early juncture and provide measures to change the behaviour of these dogs and their owners before the dogs become dangerous. The 2010 Act contains measures which will address the problems of irresponsible dog ownership and we believe this is fundamental in helping reduce the number of attacks by dogs of all breeds. The provisions contained in the 2010 Act will give additional powers to local authorities for action to be taken against out of control of dogs so as to improve dog behaviour and owner behaviour leading to reductions in the number of future dog attacks that blight our communities. Kenny MacAskill Cabinet Secretary for Justice Part A – Introduction Purpose of the Act 1. The key purpose of the Act is to promote more responsible ownership of dogs and ensure that dogs which are out of control are brought and kept under control in Scotland.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Dogs, Young People and Criminalisation: Towards a Preventative Strateg Y
    Dangerous Dogs_AW2:Layout 1 20/4/11 16:23 Page 1 Research Project Report: Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: towards a preventative strateg y Authors: Professor Gordon Hughes, Dr Jenny Maher and Claire Lawson April 2011 Submitted to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by the Cardiff Centre for Crime, Law and Justice, Cardiff University Dangerous Dogs_AW2:Layout 1 20/4/11 16:23 Page 2 2 Research Project Report: Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: towards a preventative strategy Biographies Professor Gordon Hughes is Chair in Criminology at the Centre for Crime, Law and Justice at Cardiff University. He was previously Professor of Criminology at the Open University. His research interests lie in problem-solving and expertise in crime control; community safety and crime prevention; young people, communities and justice; and criminal and social justice and devolution in the UK. His publications include the following books, The Politics of Crime and Community (2007), Youth Justice (2003), Restorative Justice (2003), Crime Prevention and Community Safety: New Directions (2002), Community and Crime Control: The New Politics of Public Safety (2002) and Understanding Crime Prevention (1998 and 2010 Chinese translation edition). Jenny Maher is a lecturer and researcher in Criminology at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff. Her research interests relate to 1) animal abuse, 2) youth violence and 3) youth gangs. She organised the 2010 Cardiff symposium ‘Situating Animal Abuse in Criminology’ and has co-edited the special journal issue on animal (in Crime, Law and Social Change) abuse that emerged from the symposium. Her previous research projects include: the use and abuse of animals among youth groups and gangs, knife crime among young people, a comparative European study on ‘peer violence among young people in public space’ and ‘youth gangs’ - the focus of her PhD thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Dog Control and Welfare
    House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Dog Control and Welfare Seventh Report of Session 2012–13 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 February 2013 HC 575 Published on 15 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Memorandum
    This document relates to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. This document relates to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009. It has been prepared by the Non Executive Bills Unit on behalf of Christine Grahame, the member in charge of the Bill to satisfy Rule 9.3.3(A) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders. The contents are entirely the responsibility of the member and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. Explanatory Notes and other accompanying documents are published separately as SP Bill 29–EN. POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL AND CURRENT LAW 2. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that dogs which are out of control are brought and kept under control in Scotland. In recent years there has been a marked growth in the number of out of control dogs in Scotland. The scale of the problem can be illustrated by the number of dog attacks reported to the police in Scotland. In 1999-2000 there were 239 reported to the police with this number increasing to 623 in 2006-071, representing a 160% increase in the number of dog attacks in an eight year period. The focus of the Bill is on “deed” not “breed” and is primarily aimed at owners’ behaviour which will thereafter address the resulting behaviour of dogs. 3. Existing law concerns dangerous dogs and is contained in four UK Acts: the Dogs Act 1871(“the 1871 Act”); the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 which amends the 1871 Act; the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”); and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 which amends the 1991 Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends, Status Symbols and Weapons: the Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs Maher, Jennifer; Pierpoint, Harriet
    www.ssoar.info Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Maher, Jennifer; Pierpoint, Harriet Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Maher, J., & Pierpoint, H. (2011). Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use.
    [Show full text]
  • Bloodline: Tackling Dog Fighting in the Community
    Bloodline: Tackling Dog Fighting in the Community 1 Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4 1. Dog Fighting in the United Kingdom ......................................................................... 8 1.1 The lack of primary data ...................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Public Opinion .................................................................................................................... 12 1.4 Dog fighting as a ‘gateway’ or ‘broken window’ crime ................................................. 13 1.5 Link with human welfare ................................................................................................... 14 2. Project Bloodline ....................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Strategy ...................................................................................................................................17 2.2 Phase 1: Research and Stakeholder Engagement - Scanning .................................. 18 2.3 Phase 2: Defining the problem – Analysis ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision: Seventeenth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill
    [Coat of Arms] The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 285) (SCOT LAW COM No 193) STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers December 2003 Cm 6070 SE/2003/313 £xx.xx The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 17 November 2003. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL CONTENTS Paragraph Page REPORT 1 APPENDIX 1: DRAFT
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Guidelines on Pet Management for Housing Providers
    A Pathway & Pet Advisory Committee Publication Housing Provider Resource - Practical Guidelines on Pet Management for Housing Providers June 2007 A Pathway & Pet Advisory Committee Publication Housing Provider Resource - Practical Guidelines on Pet Management for Housing Providers Section 1 1 Introduction Page 1 2 The role of pets in society - the benefits and the drawbacks Page 2 3 Formulating a pet policy - what to consider Page 3 4 Giving permission to keep pets Page 4 5 Education and awareness Page 5 Section 2 6 Unauthorised pets Page 6 7 Animals suitable as domestic pets Page 7 8 Guidance for the number of animals Page 7 9 Animal care Page 8 10 Enforcing your pet policy Page 12 11 Common pet management issues Page 13 Section 3 12 Housing legislation and advice Page 15 13 Animals and the law Page 15 14 Older people and sheltered accommodation Page 17 15 Homeless pet owners and hostels Page 18 Section 4 16 Case studies of effective working practice Page 19 17 Draft pet policy Page 22 18 Application to keep a pet in accommodation - draft form Page 24 19 Directory of useful contacts Page 26 20 Further reading Page 30 21 References Page 31 A Pathway & Pet Advisory Committee Publication Page 1 Housing Provider Resource - Practical Guidelines on Pet Management for Housing Providers Section 1 1 Introduction Page 1 2 The role of pets in society - the benefits and the drawbacks Page 2 3 Formulating a pet policy - what to consider Page 3 4 Giving permission to keep pets Page 4 5 Education and awareness Page 5 “The Chartered Institute of Housing welcomes this comprehensive guide to assist housing providers in developing positive guidelines on keeping pets in rented accommodation.
    [Show full text]