Brief Parliamentary debate on American XL Bully

On 19th October Dr Neil Hudson MP asked DEFRA the following question: 

What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on introducing the proposed ban on American Bully XL dogs?

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Dr Thérèse Coffey):
The Prime Minister made a decision about introducing the proposed ban on American XL Bully dogs, recognising the horrific consequences of recent dog attacks and the disproportionate amount of those being undertaken by such dogs. We are working at pace on the legislation, and importantly on how it will be put into practice, and I hope to say more on that soon.

Dr Hudson:
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. As a veterinary surgeon, I strongly agree with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State that we need to ban the dangerous American XL Bully dog as soon as possible to keep people and other animals safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in parallel to this necessary urgent action, we need to undertake important work with the public on responsible dog breeding, responsible dog ownership and better training and socialising of dogs as part of a holistic, long-term solution to dog attacks?

Dr Coffey:
My hon. Friend has great credibility in this field, given his professional experience as a vet. I understand that many owners of XL Bully dogs are passionate about their animals—their pets. That is why we are working at pace, but taking our time to get right the definitions and the transition period that we anticipate. It is important that all dog owners work to make sure that their dogs behave and have appropriate training. That is why we established a taskforce that includes dog welfare charities. We expect it to respond to us by the end of the year, and we will potentially take forward some of its recommendations.

Jim Shannon MP for Strangford:
As someone who has had a pet dog all my life and still does, I am conscious that some of those who own American XL Bully dogs think that their dogs are integral and safe, but many in the general public see them as a danger and have fear. Is the Secretary of State’s intention, as this process goes forward in Westminster, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the police, in particular, to ensure that the law and the recommendations that come out of this place can be shared with them?

Dr Coffey:
The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise owners’ concerns where they believe that they have very good dogs. That is to some extent accommodated already in the legislation that has evolved since 1991. On working with other nations, the law—the primary legislation—will apply in both England and Wales by default, but we are working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration on potential moves to make this a UK-wide approach.

Ruth Jones MP for Newport West:
I listened carefully to the answers the Secretary of State gave to both hon. Members, but I am still not reassured that she has the planned legislation in place to ban XL Bully dogs effectively. Is she satisfied that we have the kennel space across the UK, enough vets to make assessments, and clear rules and legislation in place to make the ban effective?

Dr Coffey:
The hon. Lady asks a fair question. The legislation has evolved since 1991, with amendments made to the primary legislation in 1997 and in the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. In that, there is a combination of work with the police in particular and with local councils and, of course, the judicial system. We have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to take the matter forward. I want to ensure that the legislation is right. I am expecting to present two statutory instruments to make it effective, with one bringing the ban into effect and the other providing the transition element and some of the finer details that still need to be completed.

Government Petition receives huge response:

Over half a million people have now signed a Government Petition, the Government have yet to give a written response and all petitions which exceed 100,000 signatures are considered for parliamentary debate - a response is due.

The Petition can be viewed and signed here.

The text reads as below:

Bad owners are to blame not the breed - don't ban the XL bully.

I believe that the XL bully is a kind, beautiful natured breed that loves children and people in general, and are very loyal and loving pets.

An XL bully is a "Heinz 57", a mixture of different breeds, so if you ban them then this will have implications for cross breeds of dog because nobody can be sure on the breed specifics. They are all different sizes and shapes. Just because a dog is big and muscular doesn't mean it can be labelled an XL bully, it is unfair to do this.

It is also a well-known fact that how a dog acts is a reflection of the owner's actions. Bad owners should be punished, not the breed of dog – hold bad owners accountable.

DEFRA Statement - American Bully XL Ban:

Announcement on 15th September from Government, as below:

On the back of a number of shocking ‘American XL Bully’ attacks, the Environment Secretary will urgently convene experts to define the ‘American XL bully’ breed type in the next week.

This is a vital first step towards adding it to the list of dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

This group will include police, canine and veterinary experts, and animal welfare stakeholders.

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey said:

Dog attacks are devastating for victims and their families and it is clear that more now needs to be done to stop them and protect the public. That is why we are taking decisive action to ban the American XL Bully.

This is on top of the work the Government has been doing for some time with the police and local authorities to encourage responsible dog ownership and make sure the full force of the law is being applied.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a definition of the ‘American XL Bully’ breed type needs to be specified – including clear assessment criteria for enforcement authorities – in order to impose a ban. The Government must then lay a Statutory Instrument to add it to the list of dogs banned under the Act. This will make it an offence to own, breed, gift or sell an XL bully. We will do this by the end of the year.

We need to safely manage the existing population of these dogs, therefore there will be a transition period. Further details on how the transition period will work will be provided in due course. Current XL Bully dog owners do not need to take any action at this stage however, if XL Bully owners do not come forward during the transition period, they will be committing a criminal offence if they are subsequently found to be keeping one of these dogs.

Owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control are already breaking the law, and we already have a full range of powers to apply penalties to them. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, people can be put in prison for up to 14 years, be disqualified from ownership or their dangerous dogs can be euthanised.

Further detail on next steps for developing a ban and information for owners will be provided in due course.

Government to ban American Bully XL

On the 10th September Suella Braverman, Home Secretary announced online that she had commissioned urgent advice on banning the American Bully XL. 

The on the 15th September Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared that the American Bully XL will be banned by the end of the year - 2023.

DEFRA have said they will lay a Statutory Instrument to add the American XL Bully to the current list of dogs banned.

Breed specific legislation can be found within Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act which was first introduced in the UK back in 1991 and has been widely criticised as a complete failure. 

Currently four 'types' of dog are prohibited, with 'type' having a broader definition in law than 'breed'. Dogs are presently identified based mainly on their appearance (physical measurements and proportions) not on DNA, parentage on pedigree papers.

DEFRA have also said that there will be a transition period - Chief Veterinary Officer Christine Middlemiss stated on the 16th Sept that the transition period, referred to as an 'amnesty' will require owners to register their dogs and take action including neutering and insurance, muzzle and leash in all public places. 

These are some of the requirements currently needed for dog registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs

Currently the law has NOT changed, it is planned to change and the Government is taking advice.

The details including how the American Bully XL will be defined - has not yet been made public.

It is recommended that owners take steps now to get ahead of what will be required:

Neuter your dog (record your dog's microchip details at the vets on your dogs record for proof of neutering at a later date if needed).

Obtain the 3rd party liability insurance cover now, by joining the Dogs Trust membership scheme, you will be covered as a benefit to membership - £25 per year per person (£12.50 if over 60yrs) covering up to 10 dogs. Details on their website here.

Buy a decent muzzle which allows your dog to pant and breath, begin muzzle training now, so that you have time for your dog to adjust to wearing a muzzle.

Make sure your dog is microchipped and the dog's microchip information is up to date on the database.

Make pet abduction a specific criminal offence:

Please sign and share this important UK Government Petition which is open until 28^th December 2023.

The Government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures and a response is currently awaited as this has been reached, at 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament.

Sign Here - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/640101

Petition Text:

Pets are family. Their abduction a traumatic experience. Despite this, stolen pets are regarded as personal property, with sentences dependent on monetary value. The Government should recognise the emotional & welfare impacts this crime has on people & pets by introducing a 'pet abduction' offence.

Pet Theft Reform has been campaigning to make pet theft a specific offence with access to appropriate custodial sentences since 2018. Four petitions in four years - each triggered parliamentary debates, with a total of 684,970 signatures.

Following a recommendation from the Pet Theft Taskforce, the Government added pet abduction ("taking of pets") to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in November 2021.

The Government dropped the Kept Animals Bill in May 2023.

Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill presented:

 This is a Private Members' Bill (under the Ten Minute Rule) which is sponsored by Anna Firth Conversative MP.

A Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog; and for connected purposes.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3466 To Be Printed-Bill 132.

This Bill had its 1sr reading in the Commons in May 2023 and the 2nd reading is currently scheduled to take place on 24^th November 2023.

Further details from the 1^st reading:

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog; and for connected purposes.

Britain is undoubtedly a nation of dog lovers, with recent estimates suggesting that there are 13 million dogs in the UK. In other words, almost half of all households probably have a dog. For many, a dog is not just a pet but a much-loved member of the family. Certainly, my predecessor, Sir David, loved his two pugs, Lily and Bo. My own cavapoochon, Lottie, is a much-loved member of our family.

Research shows that companionship is the most common reason for having a dog. That was absolutely the case for my constituent Michael, who is with us in the Public Gallery. Michael lost his long-standing girlfriend unexpectedly and suddenly to epilepsy, so, after her death, he adopted her beautiful, white, fluffy, bichon frisé bitch Emilie—known affectionately as Millie—both to keep him company and to help him grieve.

Emilie was a wonderful dog. She was gentle, sweet and obedient, and she totally captured Michael’s heart. However, 18 months ago, Emilie was savagely attacked by an off-lead, out-of-control dog while on a walk through the rose garden in Chalkwell Park, Leigh-on-Sea. Michael described the attack as like watching a horror movie. The dog came at Emilie like a missile and, although she was on her lead, “shook her like a rag-doll”.

Michael found himself helpless to stop Emilie being torn apart in front of his eyes. After the attack, he had no option but to carry Emilie, bleeding and with serious open wounds to her abdomen, to the nearest vet, where sadly she was put down. Outrageously, the owner of the dog that attacked Emilie refused to take any responsibility —not even paying the vet’s bill for euthanasia.

No dog owner or dog should have to go through what Michael and Emilie experienced. I believe that we would all be devastated if that happened to our own pet dog, but we would be doubly devastated if, on reporting the matter to the police, we were told that there is nothing they could do as it was simply dog on dog. Yet that is exactly what happened to Michael. That is why I am introducing the Bill.

Sadly, Michael’s experience is far from unique. Since launching the Bill, I have been inundated with heartbreaking tales from dog owners all around the country. Blue the collie, Beau the Yorkshire terrier, Luath the dachshund and Ozzy the cocker spaniel are just some of the names of beautiful dogs that have been viciously killed by other dogs through no fault of their own or their owners.

The statistics back up the anecdotal evidence. After the incident, I submitted freedom of information requests to all 43 police forces in the UK asking if they record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate offence and, if so, how many they had recorded over the last 5 years. Shockingly, only 14 police forces currently record a dog-on-dog attack as a separate incident. However, in 2016 those 14 reported and recorded 1,700 dog-on-dog attacks. Since lockdown, with everyone buying their covid-19 pandemic puppies, the numbers have skyrocketed. In 2021, the same 14 police forces recorded 11,559 dog-on-dog attacks—a 700% increase—with a shocking 2,264 in London alone.

The true incidence of dog-on-dog attacks across the country is likely to be far greater, since it would be ridiculous to assume that those attacks occur only in areas where police forces happen to record them. Scaled up, therefore, there could be as many as 35,000 dog-on-dog attacks each year across the UK—and increasing. Pet insurance companies have also reported dog-on-dog attacks to be rising, resulting in vets bills running to many thousands of pounds for affected households.

Laws, both civil and criminal, have been strengthened in recent years to protect the public where a dog presents as a risk to public safety, whether in public or in private, but it remains the case that a dog owner is not liable to any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally attacks or seriously injures another dog, unless: the other dog is a guide, assistance or service dog; the dog bites a human; or “there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person”.

That is, quite simply, not right. Self-evidently, that is frequently not the case with a dog-on-dog attack, where so often a larger dog is making a bee-line for a smaller dog. In Michael’s case, he did not fear any injury to himself, because it was so clear that the dog was going for Emilie. Ironically, if Emilie had been stolen, not attacked, Michael’s legal remedies would have been far greater. For starters, under the Theft Act 1968, the perpetrator could have received up to seven years imprisonment. But because Emilie was brutally torn apart by someone else’s dog, nothing could be done. Not surprisingly, this leaves pet owners feeling powerless and deeply frustrated. It is also no doubt the reason why police forces do not even record such awful incidents.

Plainly, it is not the dogs that are the problem. Dogs have owners and every dog owner has a responsibility to ensure their dog does not fatally attack another one. In addition, there is a growing cohort of evidence that tackling dog-on-dog aggression and dog attacks in particular may well prevent a dog from going on and attacking other animals, adults or even children. As Benjamin Franklin so famously said:

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”,

The Bill seeks to address all those issues. First, amending the Animal Welfare Act to criminalise fatal dog-on-dog attacks would extend the same protection to pet dogs that already exist for service, guide and assistance dogs. Pet dogs are as important to humans as service dogs. Indeed, when it comes to mental health, all dogs are service dogs.

Secondly, Emilie’s law would empower owners to pursue justice if their beloved pet is brutally attacked, while not demonising any particular breed or creating unhelpful stereotypes around certain breeds of dogs.

Thirdly, the Bill would encourage responsible dog ownership and animal welfare. Placing the responsibility for a fatal dog attack fairly and squarely on the person in charge of the dog, and empowering the police to take action, will have a deterrent effect, thus encouraging more responsible dog ownership.

Finally, the Bill would compel local police forces to record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences, so that, finally, the full scale of these awful offences can be seen and counted. Passing this law would be a significant step in the right direction, but its effectiveness will depend heavily upon enforcement, so we must continue to work closely with the police and law enforcement agencies to ensure offenders are brought to justice.

I am well aware that most private Member’s Bills never make the statute book, but I am hopeful that this one will. It would certainly be extremely popular if it did. Emilie’s law has already garnered a huge amount of public support. However, if the Bill does not make the statute book, I would urge the Government to initiate an immediate review of existing laws regarding dog attacks, with a view to amending the current law to protect pet dogs in a similar way to service, guide and assistance dogs.

The Bill is about protecting the 13 million dogs across the country. Most dog owners are responsible, but there must be consequences for the small minority who are not. This is about dealing with that small minority who irresponsibly allow their dogs to kill other people’s dogs. By passing the Bill, not only will we help to make all dogs more secure, we will also make our parks, our streets, our towns and our cities, especially the new city of Southend, safer places for us all to live, work and visit.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That Anna Firth, Wayne David, Elliot Colburn, Henry Smith, Mr Mark Francois, Sir Oliver Heald, Jane Stevenson, Selaine Saxby, Gareth Johnson, Margaret Ferrier, Damian Green and Peter Gibson present the Bill.

Electric Shock Collars Ban - England

Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) England Regulations:

New regulations come into force on the 1st February 2024 and will ban the use of remote-controlled electronic shock collars on dogs an cats in England.

DEFRA Explanatory Notes:

These Regulations make provision for the purpose of preventing the use of electronic collars in England.

Regulation 2(1) makes it an offence for a person who is responsible for a cat or dog to attach an electronic collar, or cause an electronic collar to be attached, to the cat or dog in England.

Regulation 2(2) provides that a person commits an offence if, at any time when the person is responsible for a cat or dog, the cat or dog is wearing an electronic collar and the person is in possession of a remote-control device in England which is designed or adapted for activating and controlling the electronic collar remotely.

Regulation 3 provides that the offences under regulation 2 are summary-only offences and that a person convicted of an offence under regulation 2 is liable to a fine.

Regulation 4 provides that a local authority may prosecute an offence under regulation 2 and regulation 5 provides for various post-conviction powers in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c. 45) to be exercisable in relation to the offences under regulation 2.

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.