Dr Neil Hudson, MP for Penrith and The Border, called for the government to deliver an evidence-based policy by protecting people and animals from dangerous dogs by considering both ‘breed and deed’.

This was during a Westminster Hall debate on breed-specific legislation this week.

At a debate held by Christina Rees, MP for Neath, Dr Hudson implored the under-secretary for EFRA to ensure government policy to protect people and animals from dangerous dogs reflects the reality that some dog breeds often exhibit potentially dangerous features such as powerful body and jaw structures.  

The debate, and Dr Hudson’s remarks, were in response to a petition calling for change to existing legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which explicitly bans breeds of dog deemed dangerous, and provides a standard by which dogs should be assessed for their identification as one of these breeds.  

At that debate, Dr Hudson said: “Some dogs sadly are dangerous, and some behaviours are very dangerous as well, to people and to animals.

“When you put that in combination with powerful jaw structures and powerful dog bodies then that becomes quite frightening.

“Some institutions and the honourable member opposite talked about that we should be looking at the deed, not the breed, but can I maybe suggest to the minister a middle ground moving forward perhaps would be to think, as we know that some breeds are dangerous, that we can be thinking about this holistically and think about breed and or the deed.” 

Jo Churchill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State or Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responded: “I would like to thank my Honourable Friend for his intervention, and I know he speaks as both a member in this place and an esteemed member of the veterinary profession.

“I think pointing out that it isn't an all or nothing approach that we're looking for is very timely and I thank him for that.” 

READ MORE: Neil Hudson MP discusses rural learning issues with Alston pupils