text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill - New Clause 3 - Dog Control Notices
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye to introduce Dog Control Notices and require the microchipping of certain dogs subject to such notices.
  @ MP voted no 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[1]. The motion rejected in this vote was:
  
  :That the clause be read a Second time.
  
  The rejected clause in question[2] 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.
  
  * [1] [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html Parliament's webpage on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (now an Act)]
  * [2] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-10-15b.655.0#g655.1 Rejected New Clause 3 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill â Dog control notices, Official Record, House of Commons, 15 October 2013]
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  