← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Legislation on Dangerous Dogs
27 November 2023
Lead MP
Nicholas Fletcher
Responding Minister
Mark Spencer
Tags
Foreign AffairsLocal Government
Word Count: 20828
Other Contributors: 17
At a Glance
Nicholas Fletcher raised concerns about legislation on dangerous dogs in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Fletcher urged the Government to review the timeline for neutering XL bully dogs, extend it by six months for puppies under seven months old, and push for a campaign on responsible dog ownership. He also asked for the Calgary model of responsible dog ownership to be considered and improved as necessary.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Nicholas Fletcher expressed deep concern about the tragic loss of life caused by XL bully dogs, highlighting the case of Jack Lis who was attacked and killed in November 2021. He noted that since the announcement of a ban on these dogs, Emma, Jack's mother, has faced real abuse from people disagreeing with the ban. Fletcher highlighted issues raised by petitioners and professionals such as Anita Mehdi and Glyn Saville regarding difficulties in implementing the ban due to lack of accurate data and concerns over responsible ownership. The British Veterinary Association stated that banning one breed will not work long-term due to complex social issues.
Christina Rees
Lab
Neath
Christina Rees highlighted the concerns of Hope Rescue, a dog rescue centre inundated with calls from worried owners due to breed bans. She mentioned that some dogs will likely be abandoned as the ban approaches and that the current system lacks kennel capacity, leading to potential suffering for these animals. Rees also expressed worries about the euthanasia of healthy rehomeable dogs in care. She urged the Government to consider letting rescue centres rehome XL bully types subject to exemption process.
Christchurch
Christopher Chope emphasised the need for precise legislation, arguing that vague terms like 'characteristics' in the statutory instrument undermine clarity and certainty in the law. He expressed concerns about the negative procedure statutory instrument related to dangerous dogs, stating that it was passed without adequate scrutiny and lacks clear definitions. He mentioned a petition with over 600,000 signatures opposing the legislation. Christopher highlighted the lack of data on dog attacks by different breeds and the need for precise breed definitions in legislation. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister facilitate a debate on the statutory instrument, which is obviously of great concern to many Members of Parliament and even more so to our constituents, before it comes into force on 31 December?
Conor McGinn
Lab
St Helens North
I have listened intently to the debate and highlighted an incident in my constituency where three women were attacked by a large bully dog, which resulted in injuries to both them and their dogs. The incident underscores the need for protection of people and animals alike.
Emma Hardy
Lab
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
Acknowledged the contributions of other MPs, highlighted the rise in dog-on-human attacks with statistics: 7,790 attacks from January to July 2020 and 9,834 for the same period two years later. Called for a full-scale review of current dog control legislation as recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's report in 2018.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Mr. Lavery highlighted the emotional impact of dangerous dogs, noting his constituency's high number of petition signatories due to a recent incident where a child was mauled by an uncontrolled dog. He emphasized the need for legislation that recognizes each dog's individual temperament rather than a blanket ban based on breed appearance, stressing the increase in incidents involving young people and the proliferation of irresponsible breeding. Mr. Lavery urged the government to pause and review current legislation, advocating for amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act to address broader issues beyond the American XL bully breed. Questioned Julian Lewis about veterinarians' responsibilities regarding euthanasia of healthy animals and whether he personally believes such actions are necessary.
James Gray
Con
Southend West
He advocated for early intervention measures and a review of existing legislation to protect pet dogs from fatal attacks, similar to the protections afforded to service, guide, and therapy dogs. He cited a 700% increase in dog-on-dog attacks over five years as evidence.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Discussed the imprecision of dangerous dogs legislation, citing a letter from his constituent Helen. Her dog, an American Bulldog X Neapolitan Mastiff mix, may be incorrectly categorised as an 'XL bully' under new regulations despite being well-behaved and costing her £3,500 for health insurance without registration.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Expressed conflict over the rush of previous legislation on dangerous dogs and raised concerns about identifying irresponsible owners before harm occurs.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Expressed concern about the public having enough information to make informed decisions before a ban on XL bully dogs is implemented. Luke Evans raised concerns about rehoming XL bully dogs post the ban, highlighting a Sky report that 246 such dogs await rehoming. He sought clarity on whether a carve-out could be made to delay the rehoming deadline until February. Asked Julian Lewis about the legal ramifications of a dog attacking another dog and whether there are precedents or data collection methods to predict such attacks.
Asked if the Government plans to implement DNA sampling and adopt the Calgary model for accurate identification of XL bully breeds.
Neil Hudson
Con
Epping Forest
Mr Hudson, a veterinary surgeon and MP, supports the Government's decision to ban American XL bully dogs due to their dangerous nature. He highlights recent attacks and public statements from surgeons about the severity of injuries caused by these dogs compared to other breeds. Mr Hudson also discusses issues such as unregulated canine fertility clinics, ear cropping, and the role of popular culture in normalizing harmful practices. He calls for continued work with stakeholders to ensure responsible dog ownership and stresses the importance of humane management of existing XL bully dogs.
Paul Bristow
Con
Hastings and Rye
He highlighted the distress law-abiding dog owners face due to potential dog ownership bans, citing examples of constituents who rely on their dogs for emotional support. He emphasized that these dogs are integral family members rather than just pets.
Robert Goodwill
Con
Hornchurch and Upminster
Acknowledged the balance presented by his colleague on dangerous dogs legislation. Emphasized the need for a ban due to increasing fatal attacks, with XL bullies being responsible for over half of these cases. Highlighted that despite their small numbers, these dogs pose a significantly higher risk than other breeds. Noted concerns about the difficulty in defining and rehoming these dogs. Raised issues regarding insurance availability and public safety measures. Mr Robert Goodwill highlighted that out of the last 23 deaths, 12 were caused by American XL dogs. He also mentioned a specific incident where Mr Vic Franklin, aged 77, was severely injured after being attacked by two rottweilers. Robert Goodwill raised concerns about dog attacks in Scotland, mentioning an incident in Motherwell where an 18-year-old owner of an XL bully was severely injured requiring surgery, and two council officials were also attacked. The use of pepper spray to control the dog before it was euthanised highlights the severity of the issue.
Siobhan Baillie
Con
Bristol North West
I have been struck by the constructive correspondence on this emotive issue, particularly a constituent's concern that dogs not classified as XL Bullies under current guidelines would be incorrectly classified if the legislation passes. This uncertainty is troubling for pet owners.
Steven Bonnar
SNP
Glasgow North East
Expressed concerns about the rushed nature of the ban on XL bully dogs, highlighting that Scotland will not implement a similar ban at this time. Suggested focusing on responsible dog ownership and continuous review of dog control legislation.
Therese Coffey
Con
Suffolk Coastal
Ms Coffey, as the Secretary of State who introduced this legislation, defended the ban on XL bully dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. She highlighted that the decision was carefully considered and not a knee-jerk reaction to attacks by these dogs. She acknowledged the emotional impact of the issue and the challenges faced by those suffering from dog attacks. Ms Coffey pointed out that many of these dogs are pets but noted their use as status symbols with cropped ears, which is illegal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Wayne David
Lab
Caerphilly
Emphasized the need for a thorough examination of dog breeding, training practices, and responsible ownership to ensure society's safety. I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the Government's introduction of a ban on XL Bullies, highlighting that illegal breeders will likely circumvent any new legislation by creating another kind of dog if not properly regulated. Visited Hope Rescue centre where many deformed dogs taken from illegal breeders were seen, illustrating how illegal breeding needs to be addressed. Asked if the hon. Member agrees with this view. Warned against focusing too narrowly on one piece of legislation, suggesting it might give an incorrect impression that it will solve the problem completely.
Government Response
Mark Spencer
Government Response
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am responding on behalf of Lord Benyon, the Minister responsible, who sits in another place. We have seen the House at its very best today. We have had an informed debate in which a series of Members have wrestled with the challenge the Government faces of keeping people safe in our communities while at the same time making sure we do not affect people's much loved pets. The debate was informed and enriched, not least by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who added a great deal to the debate with her presence, and by the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who has done a lot of work in this area. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her work on dog-on-dog attacks. We recognise the strength of feeling on breed-specific legislation, and that some people are opposed to the prohibition of specific breed-types. However, the Government must balance those views with our responsibility to protect public safety. Therefore, there are no plans to repeal the breed-specific provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Police and local authorities already have a range of powers available to them to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. We are taking a multi-factoral approach to reducing dog attacks through our responsible dog ownership taskforce, which is considering the role of education and training for both dogs and their owners, and how we can improve data collection, recording and enforcement practices. We have been co-ordinating communications with key partners so that families are equipped with practical tips about how to enjoy spending time safely with dogs. In addition, we are actively considering whether action is required to further protect dogs in breeding settings. I hope that colleagues are reassured that the Government are taking this issue very seriously and that this wide-ranging action is necessary to ensure continued public safety.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.