MPs debate Dangerous Dog Act

MPs this week debated the Dangerous Dog Act in Parliament in response to a petition, which attracted more than 116,000 signatures.

The petition called on the government to repeal breed-specific provisions in dangerous dogs legislation, which its creator believes is a “flawed approach to public safety and an ethical failing with regards to animal welfare”.

During the debate, Caerphilly MP Wayne David, said: “It is clear that breed-specific legislation does not achieve its intended purpose, which is to reduce the number of serious attacks on humans by dangerous dogs. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fundamentally different approach is required to tackle all kinds of dangerous dogs, to look at the issues of licensing, which she has mentioned, and training, and to make sure that the illicit sale of dogs is prevented and that proper controls are introduced? That requires a totally different approach to legislation.”

Christina Rees, MP for Neath, said: “Using breed as a predictor of aggressive behaviour is not reliable. Human behaviour, including poor management and the inability to provide for a dog’s needs, are more likely to cause dog to be dangerously out of control. The method by which banned dogs are identified is inconsistent and can be subjective, because the degree to which a dog needs to match the characteristics of a banned type is not clearly defined.”

She added: “Breed-neutral legislation that contains measures to effectively protect the public from dangerous dogs is needed. This would consist of a single dog control act that consolidates the current complex legislative framework in a breed-neutral way. Dog control notices should be used proactively to help prevent incidents involving dangerous dogs, and there should be stronger penalties for irresponsible owners.”

Southend West MP Anna Firth is campaigning for an urgent change to the Dangerous Dog Act law following a dog attack in which a Bichon Frise was savagely attacked by another dog in a Southend park. The dog which attacked was off-lead at the time and believed to be a Boxer and Mastiff cross-breed.

Firth said: “Would the Honourable Lady agree that it isn’t just these four breeds that are dangerous and it isn’t just this section of the Dangerous Dogs Act that needs amending? Because if another dog kills your dog, that owner is not liable for any form of prosecution unless the dog is an assistance dog or unless another human being or the owner actually fears injury themselves.

“And I believe that dog-on-dog attacks should become a criminal offence and that the owners should be criminally liable where their dog attacks and kills another dog.”

Justin Madders, MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, told Parliament: “As we know, hospital admissions due to dog bites continue to rise year on year, so it is clear that the law has significantly failed to do what was intended. It has not reduced dog bites, and it means that innocent dogs continue to be put to sleep. Tragic fatalities as a result of dog attacks continue, so it is clear that the law needs re-examining. Public safety must be paramount, and we absolutely cannot have dangerous dogs coming into contact with the public, but if that is what the legislation is meant to prevent, it is failing.”

MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Margaret Ferrier, said: “I hope that the minister can today acknowledge that there is work to be done on this issue and a need for reform, and can bring it forward. That would be not only in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the public, but would improve public safety in the round and prevent the unnecessary death of innocent dogs.”

Toby Perkins, MP for Chesterfield, added: “The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has often been held up as an example of poor-quality legislation that was created in haste, without proper scrutiny or consultation. While no one wants anyone to be the victim of a dog attack, we need to ensure that laws to address that are effective and to be certain about what they are achieving. As the current legislation is not reducing dog attacks or improving public safety, it is clearly not fit for purpose.”

Ruth Jones, MP for Newport West, added: “Like my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I believe we must follow the science and evidence. I call on the Minister today to commit to a review of breed-specific legislation and the Dangerous Dogs Act as soon as possible, and to engage with local authorities, police and experts from other countries to develop a deeper understanding of different successful approaches for the UK.”

Dave Doogan, MP for Angus, concluded: “I think it is time, 30 years on from the legislation, to take a much fresher look at this issue.”

In response, Jo Churchill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told Parliament: “I hope today to give a little encouragement about how we are already on the way to some of the things to which hon. members have referred, but I would be the first to say that we are still gathering the evidence. That is important, because we work with many of the partners mentioned today, whether that be academics and the veterinary profession, or our police, local authorities and other stakeholders. They are all key to ensuring that we have the right evidence base with which to move forward.”

When asked about the possibility of licensing dogs, Churchill said: “When the evidence comes back, we will obviously look at it. We microchip all our dogs, and if a microchipping database works effectively and we have a good education programme, I would argue that that should be sufficient, but we are waiting with an open mind until the evidence comes back.”