DOCSLIB.ORG

Phd Thesis Claire Lawson FINAL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phd Thesis Claire Lawson FINAL View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Research @ Cardiff Dogs and the Criminology of Control A case study of contemporary policy making in England and Wales Claire Lawson BA(Hons), MSc, PhD SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES CARDIFF UNIVERSITY 2019 ii Abstract This thesis explores the nexus of criminology and public policy analysis in order to better understand and explain the policy making processes in relation to the control of dogs in society. It does this through an empirical study of policy responses to the phenomenon of ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs in England and Wales, primarily during the past three decades. An influential body of work has suggested an expanding trend in punitiveness within Western societies over the past few decades. At the forefront of sociological thinking in this field is David Garland’s Culture of Control that theorises that the advent of late- modernity, with its adjusted macro-social conditions, has ushered in this new approach to law and order. As a theoretical scaffold, grand theories such as these can be useful, but this case study also seeks to go further into the empirical particulars of policy making in order to understand how a culture of control unfolds in relation to the lesser-explored arena of dangerous dogs. The methodological elements employed were two-fold and included both an extensive documentary analysis (including academic work, policy documents and legislation) recounted via a history of the present, and a thematic analysis produced from the empirical data of key policy actors' accounts (involving a programme of semi-structured elite interviews, n=25) gained via my unique insider-researcher access as a professional member of the dog policy network. Findings suggest that widespread anxieties regarding the threat to public safety posed by dangerous dogs, have been addressed via draconian legislative measures, most notably breed specific legislation (BSL) designed to manipulate and control the dog population. Evidence that BSL and other control measures are not working, and that substitute harms are befalling dog owners and their pets, have been obscured by competition and ‘white noise’ within a chaotic policy network. Public debate, fuelled by high profile and disproportionate media stories, has intrinsically linked dangerous dogs with other risky, criminal and anti-social behaviours. This ‘othering’, coupled with expressive, symbolic and politicised policy making, has resulted in an overly-punitive culture of control for dogs and their owners in society. iii Acknowledgements There are many people to thank for their participation in, and support of, this research. I am so very grateful for all the opportunities and assistance I have had as a student of the School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University, but most importantly I must thank Professors Gordon Hughes and Trevor Jones for shepherding me through this seemingly mammoth task. I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have had two of the kindest, wittiest and knowledgeable supervisors there are. Your patience, encouragement and faith in me has been crucial to my ability to stay the distance. I will miss your guidance, not to mention mulling over the state of British politics and chatting about our dogs. I also want to thank my progress reviewer Professor Tom Hall whose challenges I initially railed against but then came to value so much. I think the turning point for me truly came when I told you I feared falling out of love with my subject. You counselled me that I would need to loathe it in order to let go and be done, but that I could look forward to loving it again one day soon. To my firm and fast study-buddy Dr Victoria Silverwood. We met on the criminological outer limits all those years ago and you’ve been a stalwart friend ever since. I’ve enjoyed every moment we’ve shared in both the academic and non-academic spheres, with special mention for our many international conference trips, and so I can only hope there is a way we can continue to mix the two. Thank you for your never ending support (JFDI!); for never leaving me behind; for never making me feel a part timer; and most of all for keeping me sane. I am indebted to the RSPCA for part-funding my studies and particular mention goes to David Bowles and Brian Dalton for supporting my original application. In these latter years my thanks go to my boss Chris Wainwright for tolerating my constant complaining and most of all to my very wise friend Dr Sam Gaines. I would advise anyone contemplating doctoral studies to lean on someone who has walked the path before, so that they might reassure you and calm your mind, just has Sam has done for me on countless occasions. Special mention also goes to those colleagues who gave their insights and time most generously. I am also so very grateful to my team, more than a dozen of you over these years have tolerated my absences, reminded me of the value of this work, and teased me mercilessly on my work/life balance just when I needed it. iv Of course this study would not have been possible without the participants, all of whom were so very supportive from the outset. Your openness and enthusiasm for scrutiny of the policy process was inspiring. Some of you have now moved on to new roles or chapters in life, with one notable exception who passed away far too young. I so wish we had had more time to talk, there was so much more to learn from you. I am profoundly aware that had you lived you would have pursued a PhD. Wherever you are, I hope this thesis does you proud and please forgive every time I have moaned and been ungrateful for this opportunity. Dad, I know my academic pursuits baffle you but nevertheless you have given your unending support for my pursuit of knowledge. We may not talk about the details all that much and yet I’ve always known you are fundamentally very proud of me. When you, Mum and I dreamt of me going to University for my undergraduate studies I never thought I’d be privileged to study for two further degrees. I have also worked hard to make Mum proud, even if she is no longer here to see it. I think that is what she would have wished for, but I know she would tell me to enjoy it too. Above all others I have only made it through to the other side with the support of my wonderful, kind and enduring husband Russ. Whilst my absences may have, at times, given you just the excuse needed to play a computer game or, in more recent years, time to work all hours on your own business (of which I am exceedingly proud by the way), it is your unstinting support and belief in me that has often been the only thing that has carried me through. I’m not known as a quitter but this thesis may well have got the better of me on one or two occasions if it weren’t for you. I can never repay you. Here’s to catching up on all the holidays. One final word to the greatest ball of fluff; my four-legged and doting friend; my office companion, my foot warmer, my portable hoover; my guilt-inducer, my Doozer. A light went out in the world for me when you drew your last breath. For that to happen before I could finish this work and take you on those promised extra walks on the beach and have those struggle-cuddles in front of the fire, will stay with me forever, but then so will the memories of your unconditional love. I adore all dogs but you were not all, you were the dog. For Doozer, and all the lesser dogs. v vi Table of Contents Abstract………….………………………………………………..……………….. iii Acknowledgements……………….……….………….……………..…………..….. iv List of tables and figures…………………………………………………………… x List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………….. xi Part I - Introduction and theoretical framework Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………..…………….. 3 1.1 An insider-researcher role……….………….…………………………… 4 1.2 Framing the field……………………………………………….………… 6 Chapter Two: Towards a Criminology of Dog Control…….……………………….. 11 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 11 2.2 Situating animal abuse within criminology…….………………………….. 11 2.3 Contemplating a culture of control…………….………………………… 19 2.4 Policy theories…………………………………………………………… 26 2.5 Summary……………………….…………………………………..…….. 42 Part II - The policy context Chapter Three: The Policy landscape………….……………………………………. 47 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 47 3.2 Methodological approach…………………..……………………..……… 47 3.3 Legislative and policy landscape………………………………………….. 50 3.4 The Policy community……………………………………………………. 62 3.5 Summary………………………………………………………………… 68 Chapter Four: A history of the present: dog control………………………………. 69 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 69 4.2 Defining ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs.…….……………………………… 69 4.3 Evidence and prevalence of a ‘problem’………………………………….. 77 4.4 Summary………………………………………………………………… 103 Chapter Five: The politicisation of dog control.……………………………………. 105 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 105 5.2 A Victorian dog problem……….………………………………………… 105 5.3 The political and social climate…………………………………………… 108 vii 5.4 Exploring the political context of ‘solutions’……………………………… 111 5.5 Dogs as a symbol of a political class war………………………………… 118 5.6 Political concessions and amendments in the aftermath of the DDA……. 121 5.7 The mid-2000s and the emergence of the ‘status dog’ phenomenon……. 126 5.8 Focussing events and further adjustments to the legislative framework….. 131 5.9 Summary………………………………………………………………… 135 Part III - Elite insights into policy formation Chapter Six: Methodology…………………………………………………………. 139 6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 139 6.2 Research aim, objectives and approach……….………………………….. 139 6.3 Research Design…………………………………………………………. 143 6.4 The insider-researcher role………………………………………………. 144 6.5 Research Methods……………………………………………………….
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law APRIL 2009 Volume V J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD 2008-2009 Editor-in-Chief ANN A BA UMGR A S Managing Editor JENNIFER BUNKER Articles Editor RA CHEL KRISTOL Executive Editor BRITT A NY PEET Notes & Comments Editor JA NE LI Business Editor MEREDITH SH A R P Associate Editors Tabb Y MCLA IN AKISH A TOWNSEND KA TE KUNK A MA RI A GL A NCY ERIC A ARMSTRONG Faculty Advisor DA VID FA VRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee 2008-2009 TA IMIE L. BRY A NT DA VID CA SSUTO DA VID FA VRE , CH A IR RE B ECC A J. HUSS PETER SA NKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its second speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Ref: RFI 7304 27 March 2015 Dear REQUEST for INFORMATION: the DANGEROUS DOGS (EXEMPTION SCHEMES) (ENGLAND and WALES) ORDER 2
    T: 03459 33 55 77 or 08459 33 55 77 [email protected] www.gov.uk/defra Our ref: RFI 7304 27 March 2015 Dear REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: THE DANGEROUS DOGS (EXEMPTION SCHEMES) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2015 - SI 2015 No 138 Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 20 February 2015, about the above Order. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I apologize for the delay in replying to you. The response to each part of your request is below (I have repeated text from each part of your request for ease of reference): Q1) What checks were made on the instrument to ensure it was made in accordance with the powers granted to the Minister making it? A1) The instrument was checked by four lawyers, all employed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department; the drafting lawyer and three other lawyers performing a checking function. The instrument was sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which scrutinises secondary legislation and will draw legislation to the attention of the House if (among other reasons) it considers the instrument is not in accordance with the power being exercised. In the case of SI 2015/138 the instrument passed scrutiny without being drawn to the attention of the House, and the report of the Committee showing this is publicly available at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201415/jtselect/jtstatin/138/138.pdf. You will find reference to SI 2015/138 at page 9 under the title “Instruments Not Reported”.
    [Show full text]
  • DTW Report 2019
    DOGS TRUST WORLDWIDE Annual Review 2019 CONTENTS Annual Report of the Trustees of Dogs Trust Worldwide Chairman’s report 4 Executive Director’s report 4 1. The grants programme 2019 6 2. Capacity building 11 3. Grant evaluation visits 13 4. Public benefit 14 Financial review 16 Independent auditor’s report 18 Financial statements 20 Notes to accounts 22 Organisational aim We are working towards the day when all dogs across the world can enjoy a happy life, free from the threat of unnecessary destruction. Cover: A happy client is pleased to be reunited with her still-drowsy dog, following their neutering operation, performed by vets working with the Bali Animal Welfare Association (BAWA). See page 8. Credit: Francesca Baker This page: A vet from BAWA checks up on a dog, post-surgery. See page 8 for details of how Dog Trust Worldwide helps dogs in Bali. Credit: Francesca Baker The trustees (who are also company directors); Philip Daubeny, Joanne Howard, Jim Monteith, Graeme Robertson, Phil White; present their annual report and financial statements for the year ended December 2019. 2 Chairman’s report Executive Director’s report Plans for 2020 Welcome to the fourth annual report and accounts for Dogs Trust 2019 has been a very busy and successful year for Dogs Trust In 2020, Dogs Trust Worldwide is planning to adopt a mentoring Worldwide. This year has seen us continue to make great strides to Worldwide. We have continued to support a high number of overseas role for some of our overseas charities that we support with grants improve the lives of dogs around the world, sharing our expertise in dog welfare organisations who share and uphold our vision and or training (“partner organisations”), providing more regular and dog population management and responsible dog ownership through values.
    [Show full text]
  • Call the (Fashion) Police
    Papers from the British Criminology Conference © 2008 the author and the British Society of Criminology www.britsoccrim.org ISSN 1759‐0043; Vol. 8: 205‐225 Panel Paper On Treating the Symptoms and not the Cause Reflections on the Dangerous Dogs Act Maria Kaspersson, University of Greenwich Abstract The experience of saving a dog that later turned out to be a Pit Bull and therefore banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, made me investigate the Act and its implications. The Act is not built on evidence and by compiling results from different studies on dog bites and breed‐ specific legislation in different countries the conclusion is that there is not much empirical support for breed bans either. ‘Dangerous breeds’ do not bite more frequently than German Shepherds and directing legislation towards certain breeds deemed as ‘dangerous’ cannot therefore be seen as justified. The strength of the label ‘dangerous dog’ seems to rule out policies that follow the facts and there is more treating of symptoms than causes. Key Words: dangerous dogs, breed‐specific legislation Introduction Sometimes your research interests move in unexpected directions. In my case, the pivotal point was rescuing a dog that later turned out to be a Pit Bull Terrier, and consequently banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1 (hereafter DDA or ‘the Act’). The experience of getting an Exemption Order and registering the dog on the Dangerous Dogs Register highlighted some problematic areas of the Act in particular, and breed‐specific legislation in general. Firstly, on what facts and evidence was the Act based? Secondly, is the singling out of certain breeds justified, or is it merely stigmatising those breeds, thereby treating the symptoms ‐ 205 Papers from the British Criminology Conference, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Dangerous Dogs': Different Dog, Same Lamppost?
    This is a repository copy of 'Dangerous dogs': different dog, same lamppost?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/95525/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Bleasdale Hill, LK and Dickinson, J (2016) 'Dangerous dogs': different dog, same lamppost? Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (1). pp. 64-76. ISSN 0022-0183 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018315623684 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ "Dangerous dogs": different dog, same lamppost? Lydia Bleasdale-Hill and Jill Dickinson Abstract Legislation governing the regulation of dangerous dogs is notoriously fraught with difficulties, in particular concerning the definitions incorporated within, and the enforcement and application of, the relevant provisions. This paper examines two aspects of the legislative framework; the regulation of "type-specific' breeds of dogs, and the extension of regulations relating to the control of dogs from public to private spheres.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper – the Criminal Law Dealing with Dangerous Dogs
    DISCUSSION PAPER – THE CRIMINAL LAW DEALING WITH DANGEROUS DOGS February 2021 DISCUSSION PAPER – THE CRIMINAL LAW DEALING WITH DANGEROUS DOGS Ministerial foreword In September 2019, I published a consultation seeking views on possible changes to help improve the existing civil system of how out of control dogs are dealt with in our communities. I also promised there would be a further review published looking at wider dog control measures with a specific focus on the criminal offence of a dog being allowed to be dangerously out of control contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. This review takes forward that commitment. As a result of the initial consultation, there was strong support for the establishment of a dog control database to help enforcement agencies keep track of those irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control. Working with local authorities, progress is being made to work towards establishing a dog control database. Recently the Scottish Government has published updated statutory guidance in respect of the operation of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. This again will aid enforcement agencies, especially local authorities, as they seek to help keep communities safe. And there is also a refreshed dog control protocol which enforcement agencies can use to help understand who has responsibility for dealing with different types of dog control incidents. The action noted above is all part of the regime designed to encourage responsible dog ownership so that action is taken when dogs are found to be out of control, but before they become dangerous. It is unfortunate that despite the efforts to encourage responsible dog ownership, there are still dogs that can on occasion act in a dangerously out of control way.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency
    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency 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: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicosia•CYPRUS
    Nineteenth Annual Conference W ICA C N 3-5 S i OCTOBER c U o 2017 R s i Y P a • C The ICAWC vision ICAWC has one simple goal; to work together so that every dog and cat gets the love and care they deserve. Around the world, many companion animals desperately need help and that’s why we provide a platform to help raise awareness of these issues. Sharing ideas. Learning about best practices. Inspiring us all to change for the better. Let’s get together and make a difference. ICAWC Heads to Cyprus For 2017, we are excited to be visiting Cyprus for the first time. Many of the presentations appear on the programme as a result of requests made by you, both via the feedback forms or by email. We look forward to meeting new delegates and welcoming back old friends and can guarantee a full programme covering all aspects of companion animal welfare. The 5* Hilton Cyprus The Venue Located in Nicosia’s city centre, within walking distance of the shopping district and the historic Old City. We have negotiated a discounted rate for delegates but if for any reason you would prefer to stay elsewhere, please email [email protected] for details. 3rd October – Optional Shelter Visit This year we are offering the chance to visit The facilities, a grooming salon and on-site veterinary Departing Argos Sanctuary in Ormidhia. Argos Animal clinic. Shelter was founded in 2005. The following As well as providing shelter to homeless dogs and Hilton at: year, the British bases in cooperation with the cats, the organisation actively rehomes, provides 8:30am argos Cyprus Forestry Commission and the Council of medical care to stray animals, works with the local animal sanctuary Xylofagou village, gave an old quarry site to Argos authority to control the stray animal population, 9:15am to build an animal shelter which now houses up to 200 animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (C.4) Which Received Royal Assent on 8 May 2008
    These notes refer to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c.4) which received Royal Assent on 8 May 2008 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2008 —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These explanatory notes relate to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which received Royal Assent on 8th May 2008. They have been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader of the Act and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament. 2. The notes need to be read in conjunction with the Act. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Act. So where a section or part of a section does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. 3. A glossary of abbreviations and terms used in these explanatory notes is contained in Annex A to the notes. SUMMARY Part 1: Youth rehabilitation orders 4. Part 1 (sections 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 4) introduces youth rehabilitation orders (YROs), a new generic community sentence for children and young people. It sets out the requirements that may be attached to a YRO, makes provision for their enforcement, revocation, amendment and transfer to Northern Ireland, and abolishes certain existing community sentences which are to be replaced by the YRO. Part 2: Sentencing 5. Section 9 sets out the purposes of sentencing in relation to young offenders. 6. Section 10 clarifies courts’ sentencing powers to make it clear that a court is not required to impose a community sentence in cases where the offence is serious enough to justify such a sentence.
    [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]
  • Explanatory Notes
    These documents relate 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 —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES (AND OTHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS) CONTENTS 1. As required under Rule 9.3 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, the following documents are published to accompany the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009: • Explanatory Notes; • a Financial Memorandum; and • the Presiding Officer’s Statement on legislative competence. A Policy Memorandum is printed separately as SP Bill 29–PM. SP Bill 29–EN 1 Session 3 (2009) These documents relate to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 2. These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Non-Executive Bills Unit on behalf of Christine Grahame MSP, the member in charge of the Bill. They have been prepared in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. 3. The Notes should be read in conjunction with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So where a section or schedule, or a part of a section or schedule, does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND TO THE BILL 4. The Bill modernises the law on control of dogs. It enables local authorities to impose measures on the owner, or the person in charge, of a dog where that person has failed to keep the dog under control.
    [Show full text]