The bill amends the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to add a procedural hurdle before the Secretary of State may make orders that designate a type of dog under section 1 (dogs bred for fighting) or section 2 (other specially dangerous dogs). Before any such order, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation and publish a comparative account of fatalities caused by bites: the number of fatalities for the proposed type in each of the preceding three years and the number of fatalities from bites by other types in the same three‑year window.
This change does not alter the Secretary of State’s substantive power to designate dog types, but it raises the evidentiary and transparency standards for doing so. The requirement is narrow — it focuses on fatalities and a three‑year period — and it leaves key implementation choices (data sources, attribution methods, timelines) to government practice, which is likely to determine whether the provision leads to more evidence‑based decisions or to procedural delay and legal challenges.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts new subsections into sections 1 and 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that require the Secretary of State to (1) hold a public consultation and (2) publish the number of bite‑related fatalities for the proposed dog type and for other types in each of the preceding three years before making an order designating a type.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are owners and breeders of types that might be designated, the Secretary of State and the civil servants who must run consultations and assemble data, animal welfare and public‑safety organisations that typically input to breed‑designation processes, and agencies that hold relevant records (coroners, NHS, police, ONS).
Why It Matters
It creates a formal transparency and consultation step for breed‑designation decisions and establishes fatalities data as the central quantitative benchmark. That elevates the evidentiary standard for breed‑specific measures but also exposes the process to questions about data quality, small‑number statistics, and the mechanics of attributing fatalities to a ‘type.’
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the 1991 Act by inserting mirror procedural requirements into the two provisions the government uses to prohibit or control particular kinds of dogs: the section on dogs bred for fighting and the catch‑all for other specially dangerous dogs. For either route, the government must now consult the public about any proposed order and publish a short comparative data review showing fatalities from bites by the proposed type and fatalities from bites by other types in each of the three years immediately before the proposal.
Practically, the bill narrows what ministers must publish: it demands counts of fatalities rather than broader measures such as hospital admissions, non‑fatal serious injuries, or incident rates per population of dogs. The three‑year window is fixed by the text; the bill does not mandate how to calculate or where to source those counts.
It therefore creates a transparency expectation without setting methodology, leaving the Secretary of State to decide which records to rely on and how to treat mixed‑breed or unidentified animals.The measure does not repeal or limit the existing power to make orders; it adds steps to the administrative process that could lengthen decision timelines. Because fatalities from dog bites are rare, ministers and officials will often be confronting very small numbers — zeroes and single digits — which changes how that published comparative review will be interpreted and litigated.
The bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland and takes effect on the day it becomes law, so, if enacted, the obligation would apply to future designations across those jurisdictions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts subsection (8A) into section 1 and subsection (4A) into section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, making the consultation and publication requirements explicit for both statutory routes to designation.
Before making an order, the Secretary of State must publish the number of fatalities, in each of the preceding three years, resulting from bites by (a) the proposed dog type and (b) other types of dog — a comparative, year‑by‑year tally.
The statutory metric is limited to fatalities: the text does not require publication of non‑fatal attacks, hospital admissions, or incident rates relative to dog population size.
The bill requires a public consultation on any proposed order but imposes no minimum consultation period, no format requirements, and no specified obligations for responding to consultation responses.
The text sets no rules on sources or attribution: it does not identify which official records (coroner verdicts, police reports, NHS data, ONS) must be used, nor does it create sanctions or remedies if the Secretary of State fails to consult or publish the required numbers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pre‑order consultation and fatalities publication for fighting‑bred types
This provision amends the subsection structure of section 1 (dogs bred for fighting) by adding an obligation that the Secretary of State carry out a public consultation and publish a three‑year, year‑by‑year count of fatalities for the proposed type and for other types before making an order under section 1(1)(c). The practical effect is procedural: ministers retain the power to prohibit a type but must now show a comparative fatalities table and record consultation before exercising it. That will force officials to assemble records and decide how to attribute a fatality to a ‘type’ in advance of any order.
Mirror requirements for ‘other specially dangerous dogs’ route
Section 2 covers the residual power to list dogs judged ‘specially dangerous’ even if they are not fighting breeds. The bill imposes the same consultation and publication duties on that route. Because section 2 is broader and more discretionary, the procedural check is likely to matter most there: it channels discretionary ministerial judgment into a公開 process and creates a record that third parties can use to challenge or support a designation.
Territorial coverage and immediate commencement
The bill explicitly extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and it comes into force on the day it is passed. That means, on enactment, any future order designations across those jurisdictions must follow the new steps. The text does not carve out Northern Ireland or address devolved implementation arrangements, so inter‑governmental coordination and data sharing between UK jurisdictions may be practically necessary.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners and keepers of types likely to be targeted: They gain an explicit, documented consultation process and a published fatalities comparison that they can use to contest or lobby against designation decisions.
- Animal welfare charities and behaviour specialists: The requirement for published data and consultation elevates empirical debate and gives these groups a clearer evidentiary platform to advocate for measures other than blanket bans (education, rehoming, owner sanctions).
- Researchers, public‑health analysts and statisticians: The bill’s focus on a comparable fatalities series creates demand for standardized data and may prompt improved record‑linkage across coroners, health and police datasets.
- Legal advisers and claimants: The formalised pre‑order procedure produces a paper trail that clients can use in judicial review or administrative challenges where consultation or publication appears deficient.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Secretary of State and the responsible department: They must run consultations, compile and publish the fatalities review and defend procedural choices — a new administrative and political cost with no appropriation in the bill.
- Data providers (coroners, NHS trusts, police, ONS): They will face requests for timely, disaggregated fatalities counts and may need to adapt coding and reporting practices to meet the demand for year‑by‑year, breed‑specific data.
- Local authorities and enforcement agencies: If the new step delays designation decisions, local services may see prolonged uncertainty about enforcement priorities and resource planning for dog control.
- Animal welfare and rescue charities (operational side): If ministers delay orders or face court challenges, charities may face prolonged caseloads or shifting rehoming pressures arising from uncertain policy outcomes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two defensible aims against one another: the desire for transparent, data‑based justification before restricting or banning dog types, versus the practical reality that fatalities are rare, data are messy, and urgent public‑safety decisions sometimes must be made without neat statistical proof; requiring robust comparative fatality evidence can improve legitimacy but also risks paralysis, misinterpretation of small numbers, or politicised delay.
The bill’s central operational weakness is its reliance on fatalities as the sole quantitative benchmark. Dog‑bite fatalities are rare; in many years and for many types the published counts will be zero or very small, producing unstable comparisons that cannot support reliable causal inferences.
Small‑number fluctuations can be misleading and easily politicised in a public consultation.
The statute leaves critical implementation choices unspecified: which official datasets to use, how to attribute a fatality to a ‘type’ where animals are mixed‑breed or unverified, how to handle cross‑border deaths and differing reporting practices in England, Wales and Scotland, and what constitutes an adequate consultation. Those blanks create room for procedural challenge — both from campaigners who say the government relied on weak data and from ministers who may argue that imperfect records justify inaction.
The bill’s immediate commencement increases the pressure to settle these technical questions quickly.
Finally, the bill links transparency to timing: a transparent, evidence‑based process can improve legitimacy, but it can also delay decisions that some see as urgent for public safety. Because the text creates no timeline, consultation lengths and data‑gathering exercises become discretionary levers that shape outcomes as much as the underlying facts on dog behaviour and owner conduct.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.