10/06/2026
A good read and desperately in need of everyone signing 🫶🐶🐾
Before I move on to the 35th anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Bill debate tomorrow, it is worth revisiting what happened the day after Kenneth Baker announced the proposed legislation.
On 23 May 1991, Parliament debated the Government’s plans.
The previous day had been dominated by the announcement itself. MPs had already raised concerns about registration, traceability, irresponsible ownership, and why the Government was focusing on certain breeds when attacks involved many others.
But on 23 May, the debate began to shift.
The emotion and urgency of the announcement had passed.
Now Parliament had time to consider what was actually being proposed.
And what is striking when reading the debate today is not how different it was from modern discussions.
It is how familiar it sounds.
MPs immediately began asking questions that the Government struggled to answer:
❓ Why focus on only certain breeds when attacks involved many others?
❓ Why reject dog registration and traceability?
❓ How would police identify these dogs in practice?
❓ What about irresponsible owners?
❓ What about the majority of attacks involving breeds that were not being banned?
In short:
❓❓Why was the Government focusing on only a fraction of the problem❓❓
Yet despite acknowledging that attacks involved numerous breeds and that irresponsible owners were often responsible, the proposed legislation remained focused primarily on banning specific types of dog.
That contradiction runs throughout the debate.
MPs also raised concerns that would later become some of the most controversial aspects of the Dangerous Dogs Act itself:
• How would police identify these dogs?
• What about crossbreeds?
• What happens when a dog only partly resembles a banned type?
• How would the law be enforced consistently?
• Would banning certain breeds actually improve public safety?
Many of the practical problems that would emerge over the following decades were already being predicted before the legislation had even passed.
There was also concern that the Government was reacting to public pressure and recent attacks rather than undertaking a broader review of dog control and public safety.
Throughout the debate, MPs repeatedly returned to the same underlying themes:
• irresponsible ownership
• lack of control
• intimidation
• prevention
• enforcement
• public safety
Many appeared unconvinced that banning specific types alone would address those wider issues.
And that is perhaps the most remarkable thing about reading the debate 35 years later.
The questions being asked on 23 May 1991 are almost identical to the questions still being asked today.
Why only certain breeds?
Why reject registration?
How will this be enforced?
What about irresponsible owners?
Will this actually improve public safety?
These concerns were not raised after the Dangerous Dogs Act failed.
They were raised before it had even passed.
The cracks in the legislation were being identified before the ink was dry.
Which is particularly relevant today.
Today DEFRA updated the exemption requirements for banned breed dogs.
From 1 July 2026, third party public liability insurance will no longer be required.
At the same time, from 1 November 2026, a new condition will apply stating that a child under 12 must not be left alone with a banned breed dog in a private place without adult supervision.
Whether people agree or disagree with those changes is not really the point.
Personally, I would argue that no child under 12 should be left unsupervised with any dog, regardless of breed or type. That is simply sensible dog ownership and child safety.
The point is that 35 years after the Dangerous Dogs Act was first proposed, the framework is still being adjusted, amended, and added to.
And that brings us back to the same question Parliament was asking on 23 May 1991:
Are we addressing the underlying causes of serious incidents, or are we continuing to modify a system whose weaknesses were being identified before it had even become law?
Thirty five years later, many of those same questions remain unanswered.
Tomorrow marks the 35th anniversary of the Second Reading debate on the Dangerous Dogs Bill itself.
What happened there is even more revealing.
If you believe it is time to move beyond breed based legislation and towards a system based on behaviour, accountability, education, traceability, and prevention, please consider signing and sharing the petition.
Petition: Reform the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to remove breed bans and introduce licensing
We ask the Government to reform the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 by removing breed-specific provisions and introducing a universal, behaviour-based dog licensing system that replaces the current framework and applies equally to all breeds, with proportionate enforcement and owner accountability.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/761070
Hansard – 23 May 1991:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1991-05-23/debates/370cc4c7-c6ab-4e6d-8521-c1705276489b/DangerousDogs
