Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Expressed conflict over the rush of previous legislation on dangerous dogs and raised concerns about identifying irresponsible owners before harm occurs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.