Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Breed-specific Legislation

06 June 2022 · 9 other contributors · 10,210 words

Opened by Christina Rees Lab Neath

Responding minister: Jo Churchill

Crime & Law Enforcement

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Christina Rees raised concerns about breed-specific legislation in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • Concerns raised about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 due to its impact on dogs and owners, citing a case where a dog was seized based on appearance rather than behavior.
  • The petition calling for the repeal of the legislation has gathered over 114,000 signatures, arguing that breed is an unreliable predictor of aggression.
  • Studies suggest that certain breeds are not inherently more dangerous than others, and that dog behavior is influenced by how they are raised.

Key requests to Government

I ask the Government to commit to an independent evidence review, ensure welfare needs of affected dogs are met, promote responsible dog ownership through preventive interventions, and explore alternatives to breed-specific legislation. The hon. Member requests that the Government reform breed-specific policies by repealing and replacing the current legislation with measures that actually improve public safety without negatively impacting dog welfare. She urges the Minister to acknowledge the need for legislative change in line with public opinion.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Christina Rees Lab Neath

I am concerned about the impact of breed-specific legislation on dogs and their owners. A constituent's dog, Lola, was seized due to appearance rather than behavior, highlighting the flawed nature of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The petition I am discussing has attracted over 114,000 signatures and calls for the repeal of this legislation. It is argued that using breed as a predictor of aggression is unreliable and leads to unnecessary suffering of dogs. Studies from Middlesex University suggest that certain breeds are not inherently more dangerous than others. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is concerned about the outdated nature of breed-specific legislation under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which does not protect public safety effectively. She highlights that dog behaviour is influenced by how they are raised rather than their genetic predisposition to aggression. The number of dog bites continues to rise yearly despite the legislation, and data around dog ownership is unreliable and inconsistent. Furthermore, dogs seized under the Act go through traumatic experiences in kennels, leading to a lower quality of life. Some dogs that look like banned breeds but are not aggressive may be euthanised based on their appearance alone.

Other contributors (9)
  • Anna Firth Lab Great Yarmouth

    Ms Firth raised a case involving a dog-on-dog attack in her constituency, arguing that section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to criminalise owners allowing their dogs to kill others, regardless of breed or risk to human injury.

  • Dave Doogan SNP Angus and Perthshire Glens

    Dave Doogan spoke in favour of the views expressed by his constituents regarding breed-specific legislation. He visited an SSPCA rescue centre where he met a pit bull that might face euthanasia due to current laws which are not supported by evidence. Doogan argued for amending section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act so dogs are judged based on their behaviour rather than breed, emphasising the need to protect public safety while ensuring humane treatment of animals.

  • Justin Madders Lab Ellesmere Port and Bromborough

    Madders highlighted that his constituency contributed the second-highest number of signatures to a petition against breed-specific legislation, arguing that it is flawed, outdated, and ineffective. He cited statistics indicating that dog bites have increased by 154% in the past 20 years while only 8% of dangerously out-of-control dog cases involved banned breeds. Madders emphasized that focusing on four specific breeds does not improve public safety and called for a more rounded approach to dog control based on prevention through responsible ownership and education.

  • Lisa Cameron SNP East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow

    She supported the evidence-based approach to addressing dangerous dogs by highlighting the need to focus on factors such as puppy farming, trauma, abuse, and lack of training rather than breed-specific regulations.

  • Mark Pawsey Con Rugby

    He agreed with the concerns raised by Christina Rees about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation and its negative impact on dog welfare.

  • Neil Hudson Con Epping Forest

    Mr Hudson is encouraged by the Government's approach to review evidence in legislation. He acknowledges that some dogs and behaviours are dangerous, particularly those with powerful jaw structures and bodies. While supportive of considering the deed over the breed, he suggests a holistic approach that takes into account both breed and behaviour.

  • Ruth Jones Lab Newport West and Islwyn

    Acknowledged the contributions made during the debate, thanked constituents for signing a petition that received more than 114,000 signatures. Stressed the need to consider background issues such as Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act and questioned the effectiveness of exemption orders issued to dog owners. Highlighted that since the act was introduced, fatalities from dog attacks have increased up to 73 cases in England and Wales. Called for a realistic and objective approach focusing on aggressive behavior rather than breed appearance.

  • Toby Perkins Lab Chesterfield

    He highlighted the strong support for the debate, noting that over 115,000 people had signed an e-petition in favour of it. He shared personal anecdotes about his own pets to illustrate the emotional attachment many have towards their animals and expressed concerns regarding the unfairness of current legislation which can lead to well-trained dogs being euthanised based on breed alone. Perkins cited evidence suggesting that the breeds targeted by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are no more aggressive than other types, arguing for a review of the law.

  • Wayne David Lab Caerphilly

    He argued that breed-specific legislation fails to reduce serious attacks by dangerous dogs and proposed a different approach focusing on licensing, training, preventing illicit dog sales, and introducing proper controls. The hon. Member for Caerphilly highlighted that there were 69 dog attacks in his small Gwent police area over five months, suggesting that the current legislation is ineffective across the country. Mr David asks if the Government will consider licensing dogs as part of their legislative review.

Government Response

Jo Churchill

The Government is taking a cautious approach towards breed-specific legislation due to concerns that repealing restrictions without other changes could compromise public safety. They are working with stakeholders to gather evidence and explore measures such as strengthening enforcement, developing education initiatives, improving dog training quality, and enhancing data collection. The responsible dog ownership project, set to conclude in early 2023, will provide guidance on the next steps. Existing legislation like the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act are being utilized to address irresponsible dog ownership and attacks. Microchipping dogs is also a priority for improving identification and accountability.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy