Controlling dangerous dogs Contents

2Current approach to dog control

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

4.Over 200,000 people are attacked every year by dogs in England alone.6 Children under nine are statistically at most risk.7 There are several pieces of legislation in place to protect the public and ensure proper dog control. Our inquiry focused on one of the main pieces of legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.8 The law was introduced to protect the public following a spate of high-profile attacks. Its stated aim is to:

prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting [...] to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.9

5.Our inquiry examined whether these aims were being achieved. We focused specifically on Section 1 of the Act. This section includes so-called ‘Breed Specific Legislation’ (BSL), as it makes it illegal to own, sell, breed, give away or abandon specific breeds/types of dog regardless of the animal’s behaviour or temperament.10 The following breeds/types are prohibited under Section 1:

6.Dogs suspected of being of a prohibited type may be seized by the authorities and held in a police-appointed kennel pending examination by a qualified expert.11 The majority of animals seized under Section 1 are suspected Pit Bull Terriers.12 If the dog is found to be a banned Section 1 type, an owner wishing to keep the animal must go through court proceedings to determine that they are a fit and proper person and that the animal will not pose a risk to public safety. If the owner is successful, the dog is placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs and the owner must comply with certain conditions, including that:

7.As of May 2018, there were 3,530 prohibited dogs on the Index:

8.The law does not provide for the dog’s owner to be changed, unless the owner dies or is incapacitated.15 If a Section 1 dog is stray, was abandoned and is being kept in a rescue centre, or if the owner is unable to care for it due to a change in circumstances, the dog cannot be re-homed and is liable to euthanasia.16 Similarly, if the owner is not judged to be a fit and proper person, the dog would be destroyed.17

Wider dog control legislation

9.Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act makes it an offence for any dog to be dangerously out of control, regardless of its breed/type. A dog may be considered dangerously out of control if it:

10.Additional dog control legislation includes the Dogs Act 1871, which provides civil sanctions, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 which covers livestock worrying.19 More recently, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 granted authorities greater powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, including incidents involving dogs.20 At the same time, the maximum sentences for dog attacks resulting in injury or death were raised to five and 14 years respectively. The law was further extended to cover incidents on private property and attacks against assistance dogs.21

Perspectives on Breed Specific Legislation

11.The majority of public concern over the Dangerous Dogs Act has concentrated on the breed ban in Section 1, and there have been widespread calls for it to be repealed on animal welfare grounds.22 We accordingly pressed our witnesses for their views on the ban’s effectiveness. The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) told us that “the legislation is essential to keeping the public safe” and Section 1 of the Act should not be repealed.23 The police acknowledged difficulties with legislation, however, noting that “traditional fighting dog lines had been diluted” to the degree that such dogs were often now found to be ‘near types’ that fell outside the Section 1 classifications.24

12.During our evidence session, Deputy Chief Constable Pritchard representing the NPCC stated that he would support a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act, and that “we would like to move away from a specific list”.25 He noted that the police would “welcome further research to understand what would be best practice” and “look for a long-term plan to change the legislation. That would be welcomed in communities and by forces”.26 Deputy Chief Constable Pritchard stressed that the Government should “not just repeal it and leave it. There are still issues of risk in our society and our communities”.27

13.The British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (hereafter BVA), the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Kennel Club, and David Ryan, former Chair of the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors, were unanimous in their condemnation of the breed specific provisions in Section 1.28

14.Dogs Trust told us there was “no evidence that there has been any effect on the number of bites”,29 and there was a “catalogue of research that tells us that breed is not a predictor” of risk.30 The RSPCA highlighted that the conditions of seizure and kennelling could be stressful for the animal and negatively affect its behaviour.31 Battersea Dogs & Cats Home told us it was “heart-breaking” to put down dogs they believed could be safely re-homed.32 The organisation has said that over 70 percent of the banned Pit Bull types in its care could have gone to new owners, but were instead required to be put down.33

15.The UK Centre for Animal Law raised additional concerns that the current focus on prohibiting certain breeds had offered false reassurances to policymakers, and distracted attention from investigating alternative and potentially more effective methods of dog control.34 The Animal Behaviour, Cognition & Welfare Group further noted that:

… the stigmatisation of certain breeds through the legislation may have inadvertently increased the value of dogs as weapons in general, or particular breeds, and thus increased the problem.

Secondly the labelling of some dogs as “dangerous” carries with it an implicit suggestion that other breeds are “not dangerous”, which might lead to individuals abandoning normal risk management around these latter types, and an increased risk as a result.35

16.We put these concerns to Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity. He disagreed with the assessment that Breed Specific Legislation was an inappropriate response, arguing that there was an “overriding paramount interest in making sure that the public is safe”.36 Defra’s Deputy Director, Animal Welfare and Exotic Disease Control maintained that the rising number of bite incidents was not indicative of a failing system, and that the question was rather “what would have been the case without our protections and restrictions in place? That is what we do not know”.37 Lord Gardiner further highlighted the moral force of prohibiting certain activities and reassuring the public that their concerns were being met:

What if … people decided that the green light was on and we could have those breeds… What if we then found that there were an increase in fatalities? Everyone in this room, and particularly people outside, would say, “What on earth have you done?”38

17.He further criticised the “fixation” on Section 1 of the Act, noting that even without it, Section 3 of the Act empowered authorities to tackle dogs of any breed/type.39

Effectiveness at protecting the public

18.Despite the fairly comprehensive legislative framework aimed at preventing dog attacks, the number of bite and strike incidents has steadily increased over the years. An initial review of the Dangerous Dogs Act, published five years after the law’s introduction, showed no significant reduction in dog bites.40 NHS data shows that between 2005 and 2017, the number of recorded hospitalisations rose from 4,110 up to 7,461, representing an 81 percent increase.41 The RSPCA told us that there was no evidence suggesting that prohibited breeds were a significant factor behind the rise.42 Figures from the Metropolitan Police for 2015–16 indicated that legal breeds accounted for around 80 percent of incidents involving Section 3 ‘dangerously out of control’ offences.43 The annual cost to the NHS of treating dog attack victims has been estimated at £3 million.44

19.The total number of bites is likely to be substantially higher than the NHS hospital admission figures suggest. Recent research has estimated that only a third of those suffering a dog bite subsequently sought medical treatment.45 We also heard that only overnight stays would be recorded in the commonly cited hospital records; victims returning home after treatment at an accident and emergency department may not be included in these figures.46 In 2012 the Government estimated that over 200,000 people a year suffer dog bites.47

20.Dog attack fatalities have also increased. The exact figures are not clear due to different reporting metrics and sources. Defra’s submission stated that there had been 31 fatalities since 2005 involving dog attacks in England and Wales.48 Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) recorded a total of 67 fatalities following dog attack incidents between 1991 and 2015, with 37 fatalities occurring between 2005 and 2015.49

Source: Data collated from the Office for National Statistics

21.We put it to Lord Gardiner that the increase in deaths and injuries caused by dog attacks indicated that the current approach was not protecting the public adequately. The Minister stressed that there had been a number of legislative improvements over the years, but agreed that “no one is satisfied with an increase” in incidents, and that “even if there was a decrease, it is still not enough”.50 He insisted however that maintaining Breed Specific Legislation was essential to public safety.51

22.We were concerned to hear that the Government considered the Dangerous Dogs Act to be successful on the grounds that it was impossible to tell how many attacks would have occurred without the law. This is not convincing. Children and adults are suffering catastrophic injuries. The increase in attacks - most of them from legal breeds - clearly indicates that the current approach is failing to protect the public adequately.

23.To ensure the public receives the best possible protection, the Government should commission an independent review of the effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and wider dog control legislation. This review should begin no later than January 2019. We expect this review to take account of the concerns and recommendations raised throughout this Report.


6 GOV.UK, Clampdown on dangerous dogs, 23 April 2012

7 RSPCA (DDL0229) para 25

10 Because the Pit Bull Terrier is not a recognised breed in the UK, this Report generally refers to breeds/types when discussing the provisions of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

11 Q66

12 NPCC (DDL0433) p.2

14 Defra (DDL0043) para 11

15 Exceptions are discussed in Chapter 3

16 UK Centre for Animal Law (DDL0355) paras 11–12

17 The Kennel Club (DDL0288) p.7

19 For the Dogs Act 1871 see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/34–35/56, for the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 Act see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1–2/28

21 Defra (DDL0043) para 4

22 See for example Blue Cross, If looks couldn’t kill

23 NPCC (DDL0433) p.4

24 NPCC (DDL0433) p.3

25 Q119

26 Q121

27 Q119

28 Qq1–8, 75–80

29 Q2

30 Q14

31 Q67

32 Q69

34 UK Centre for Animal Law (DDL0355) para 16

35 The Animal Behaviour, Cognition & Welfare Group, University of Lincoln (DDL0289) para 6

36 Q242

37 Q258

38 Q246

39 Q242

41 2016–17 figures obtained from NHS Digital data, available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/. 2005 figures obtained from BBC, Rise in dog bite admissions, 28 May 2015

42 RSPCA (DDL0229) p.2

43 NPCC (DDL0433) Appendix 1

45 Westgarth et al, How many people have been bitten by dogs? Epidemiol Community Health, February 2018

46 Qq21–26

47 GOV.UK, Clampdown on dangerous dogs, 23 April 2012

48 Defra (DDL0043) para 13

49 Office for National Statistics, Deaths from dog bites, England and Wales, 1981 to 2015, September 2016

50 Q256

51 Q242




Published: 17 October 2018