Dog breed specific legislation
Christina Rees MP
As a member of the U.K. Parliament Petitions Committee, and an animal lover, I am becoming accustomed to representing petitioners who are determined to improve the life of animals, and are at the forefront of championing animal welfare campaigns.
And so it was an honour to open the UK Parliament debate on the E-petition that Anita Mehdi had created relating to dog breed specific legislation. Anita’s petition had attracted over 114,550 signatures.
There are 4 banned breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: The Pit Bull Terrier; Japanese Tosa; Dogo Argentina; and Fila Brasileiro.
The core assumption of the Act is that certain dog breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. Dogs suspected of being one of the banned breeds are assessed against what they look like, but these characteristics are not defined, neither is the method by which the assessment should be carried out, which results in many legal breeds and cross breeds being banned, irrespective of the dog’s behaviour.
Anita told me that her dog Lola was seized by police in August 2019 after they were informed that Lola could be a banned breed. The Dog Legislation Officer identified Lola as a “Pit Bull” type based on her appearance and a Destruction Order was made. But Lola had never shown any aggression and had not been involved in any incidents.
Anita went to court and obtained a court order that she should be permitted to keep Lola, but if this was granted, Lola had to be neutered, microchipped, and always muzzled and kept on a lead in public. Many owners cannot afford the costs it takes to go to court, and the very sad outcome is that their dogs are euthanised because they look dangerous, not because they are dangerous.
Anita wants breed specific legislation to be repealed and the Act amended to focus on dogs that are dangerous and on owners who mistreat their dogs, with increased penalties for offenders.
The global trend is to repeal dog breed specific legislation, for example, the Netherlands repealed in 2008, and Italy in 2009.
The RSPCA has looked at the science around incidents involving dangerously out of control dogs, and found that dogs of a banned type were not more likely to be a risk to the public. The Middlesex University Independent Report 2021 commissioned by DEFRA found that dog bite data is lacking and inconsistent, but this data was used by the UK Government to underpin a breed specific approach to public safety, which casts doubt on evidence that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous.
The RSPCA has reluctantly euthanised 310 dogs under breed specific legislation in the past five years, but believe that reform the the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 would allow dogs that are assessed as being not at risk to the public to be rehomed.
The UK Government set up a Responsible Dog Ownership Steering Group to examine proposed changes to data collection, education, and enforcement, but disappointingly breed specific legislation is not within its remit.
Before the debate I met with Jayne Dendle who set up the South Wales Charity “Save Our Seized Dogs” to help dog owners who had their dogs taken from them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Jayne started her charity after reading about a therapy dog that had been seized as a potential Pit Bull type, despite the dog not being involved in any incidents. The dog owner was a local authority tenant who discovered after she had fought for her therapy dog to be assessed as an “exempt dog” and returned to her, that she wasn’t allowed to keep an “exempt dog” in her property. Jayne offered to help, and her charity was born.
Jayne told me that the Dangerous Dogs legislation requires the dog owner to prove that their dog is not one of the 4 banned breeds, a very onerous reversal of the burden of proof. Jayne recommends that the owner challenging the assertion that their dog is one of the banned types obtains an independent assessor’s report, which is often the only way to save a dog from euthanasia, but the report costs from £800 to £1500, so Jayne’s charity can only fund a limited amount of dog owners.
Jayne told me of some very disturbing cases she had experienced. When an owner states that they are seeking an independent assessment, the option of an Interim Exemption Order (recommended by DEFRA, when the owner is assessed as a “fit and proper person”, the dog assessed as of “good temperament” so is allowed home under exemption conditions similar to Lola), was withdrawn.
Some police forces do not use the Interim Exemption Order, and some encourage an owner to sign over their dog to be euthanised in exchange for not pressing charges.
Seized dogs returned to owners after being kept in police kennels, where costs are kept to a minimum, are often underweight, have sores from sleeping on concrete floors, damaged teeth after biting bars of the cage, have deformed tails after wagging them in confined spaces.
Some young, healthy dogs had been found dead in police approved facilities.
Puppies under 8 weeks old are seized when one or both parents are suspected of being of a banned type. Jayne fought to get some puppies released, which took until they were 8 months old, by which time they were under-socialised, unused to a family environment and very scared. Good practice suggests dog maturity occurs at 9 months.
At the end of a debate, where there was cross party support for repeal and reformation, I asked the UK Government Minister to:
• Commit to DEFRA’s recommendation to commission an independent evidence review to establish whether banned breeds are inherently of greater risk than legal or cross breeds.
• Ensure all dogs affected by the Act have their welfare needs met and safeguarded.
• Ensure all police forces use Interim Exemption Orders.
• And if not, provide up to date kennelling standards.
• Allow independent assessors to review welfare of dogs kept in kennels under the Act.
• Discontinue contingent destruction orders, and drop conditions for exempted dogs where it has been proved that they are not a public risk.
• Allow rehoming of dogs by responsible, reputable, rehoming organisations, assessed by a robust procedure.
• Examine alternatives to breed specific legislation such as promoting and fostering responsible dog ownership communities, early intervention, such as using dog control notices, and severe penalties for dog owners who use their dogs to intimidate.
• And meet with the petitioner Anita to hear first hand her concerns.
The Minister responded with warm words but without providing a commitment to act on any of my requests. But I’m sure that the chair of the Petitions Committee, and I will be writing to the Minister to urge her to provide more details. We will not give up.
Christina Rees is the MP for Neath