London, (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Last November, 10-year-old Jack Lis, one of my constituents, was killed by a dangerous dog. The dog was an American XL Bully and had been bought on Facebook only a few days earlier. The dog was described as “aggressive” in the online advertisement and the previous owner stated that he was selling the dog because he couldn’t control it.
More recently, there was a fatal attack on a woman in Rotherham by a dangerous dog and earlier in the year, in separate incidents, five people were mauled to death by dogs, four of them children under three. During the last 15 years, the number of people requiring hospital treatment after being attacked by dogs has more than doubled and more than 7,000 patients saw their doctor after dog attacks between 2020 and 2021 alone.
Clearly, the problem of dog attacks is getting worse and the law, as it stands, is inadequate for dealing with the situation. There are a number of reasons why we are seeing an increase in dog attacks and a number of issues need to be tackled, including the importation of animals from overseas puppy farms. But there is also a need to change and strengthen the legislation relating to so-called dangerous dogs.
Only four specific breeds of dog are banned in the Dangerous Dog Act: the Pitbull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro. Incredible though it may seem to many, the breed of dog that killed my young constituent, and the woman in Rotherham, is not listed. But I am not calling for that particular breed simply to be added to the list. I believe there are two fundamental problems with the approach of listing dogs. Firstly, because there is so much crossbreeding, it is virtually impossible to maintain any kind of legislation that contains an up-to-date list. Secondly, proscribing certain breeds of dog gives the erroneous impression that only listed dogs are actually or potentially dangerous. The reality is that most dogs can be dangerous if they are not trained properly.
It is now overdue for there to be a fundamental change in the whole approach to so-called dangerous dogs. Rather than relying on breed-specific legislation, which is clearly inappropriate, the UK Government ought to bring forward legislation based on a totally different approach to the issue.
The Government’s starting point has to be an acceptance that there is a lack of any real evidence to support a breed-specific approach to protecting the public. There is a large amount of independent research which lays the basis for a quite different approach. It shows that simply looking at a dog’s breed is not an appropriate criterion for assessing risk to people. This is also the view of a whole range of organisations that have come together under the Dog Control Coalition. These organisations include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club.
It is now over 30 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed, and going beyond this Act, it has to be said that the legal framework for dealing with dog bite incidents is very complex, with a number of different laws applicable depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident. However, the breed-specific legislation is, to a large extent, reactive in character. I believe it would be better to address the issue of public safety before harm is caused, rather than responding to the consequences. Prevention has to be the watchword. That is why I want a comprehensive and fundamentally different approach to the issue.
A number of years ago, there were dog licences. The Government really ought to examine the possibility of reintroducing dog licences, but this time we should not simply see them as an easy way for Government to have an additional source of revenue. The money received should be used for a whole range of initiatives, including tackling the behavioural problems of certain kinds of dogs that lead to dog bite incidents. Resources could also be provided for dealing with stray dogs and for helping to fund dog training.
Crucially, I also believe that an effective assessment needs to be made of potential and actual owners of dogs. At the moment, anyone in any circumstances, can purchase virtually any kind of dog. I believe that local authorities should have a key role to play here. They should have the statutory responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept and housed properly, and that their owners are ensuring that their dogs are correctly and appropriately trained.
In addition, there needs to be firm control on the buying and selling of dogs. To return to the tragic case of Jack Lis, the dog that killed him was purchased on Facebook. Such purchases cannot be allowed to continue.
Dog attacks are on the increase, and we have to respond effectively and quickly. The lessons regarding the weaknesses in the legislation must be learnt. Now is surely the time, to say there must be a new and different approach to the issue of dangerous dogs. Hopefully, there can be a cross-party consensus on the best way forward.
Wayne David, Labour MP for Caerphilly.