Debate contribution: XL Bully Dogs

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .

MLA
Mr Andrew Muir
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
5 March 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Ministerial Statement
Heading
XL Bully Dogs
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4252389

Read the official Assembly record

Text

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on my decision on how Northern Ireland will deal with XL bully breed-type dogs. Like all Members, I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that can arise when dogs become out of control. Sadly, as we have seen across the UK and Ireland in recent months, the devastation is multiplied when the dogs involved are large and powerful. Only last month, we learned of another tragic death, in Essex, attributed to an XL bully breed-type dog. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently highlighted that actions taken in England and Wales against the breed were done following a concerning rise in fatal dog attacks involving the XL bully breed type. The Department indicated that, until 2021, there had been around three fatalities a year; that there were 23 fatalities from 2021 to 1 February 2024; and that the XL bully breed type was involved in many of those tragic attacks. In response to the measures against the breed introduced in England, the Scottish Government has now also felt it necessary to take action for the purposes of public safety. There are countless genuine bully breed enthusiasts who look after their dog with boundless love and dedication, but, unfortunately, the development of the dogs has sometimes suffered at the hands of the wrong types of owners. Dogs have been bred to have exaggerated features or to be overtly aggressive. Their sheer size, strength and aggression can, in some instances, make them inherently more dangerous. Breeds of this size and nature require careful, experienced and dedicated training by owners who understand their characteristics and temperament. Unfortunately, in some instances, XL bully breed-type dogs are seen as status dogs. Their size and stature can be heralded and sought after by entirely the wrong sort of dog owner. They can be used to intimidate, enforce and project an image for the person holding the lead. No responsible dog owner would let their dog be the subject of a range of ear mutilations such as we have seen with several XL bully breed-type dogs. Such dogs have also been a high-price commodity, fetching tens of thousands of pounds, leaving the breed more vulnerable to improper breeding as well as being bred for illegal fighting. In short, in the wrong hands, the dogs are abused as a commodity, a tool or even a weapon. Let me repeat that I acknowledge that there are many genuine XL bully breed enthusiasts who look after their dog with boundless love and dedication. I want to be crystal clear on that point. However, I am also conscious of the public safety risk and that Northern Ireland is the only place across the UK and Ireland that still permits unrestricted XL bully ownership. I have to determine rapidly whether that remains a sustainable position. As Minister, I have to juggle competing priorities and work out how best to protect the public, the interests of dog owners and the welfare of the dogs and how to make a decision that is proportionate and based on the best possible evidence. It has quickly become clear that there is no perfect solution to the problem. My officials and I have met animal welfare organisations to hear their views on the matter and the approach taken elsewhere to deal with dangerous dogs. I appreciate the "Deed, not breed" approach that is advocated. Welfare groups and umbrella bodies such as the Dog Control Coalition have made their case passionately. I have nothing but admiration for the dedication and commitment that such organisations demonstrate to safeguarding animals. I too have made it clear that I want to protect animals and enhance animal welfare. Let no one be in any doubt that I am on the same page as those valued stakeholders. The action taken now to safeguard the public against the risks that the XL Bully breed-type pose should be viewed as complementary and additional to our dog control policies rather than as being instead of or at odds with them. When it comes to dog control, however, there is an onus on me to ensure public safety and act when there is a need. As the Minister with responsibility for the area, I must balance the needs and concerns of all our citizens. I have read the letters that have come across my desk and responded to questions that Members raised. It is evident that there is public worry about XL Bully dogs in Northern Ireland and the harm that they could do. When I assumed this role, I knew that I would have difficult or potentially unpopular decisions to make. I will not shirk that responsibility. Therefore, I tasked my officials with keeping track of the number of XL bully breed-type dogs that are licensed in Northern Ireland on a weekly basis. In the five months since the announcement of measures in England and Wales to restrict ownership — measures that were then replicated in Scotland — there has been a greater than 50% increase in the number of XL bully breed-type dogs licensed by our councils. I should make it clear that, when dog owners license their dog with the council, the breed is self-declared and not subject to further scrutiny. I know just how much people here love and value their dogs, and I am in no doubt that the overwhelming majority of owners license their dogs properly and record the breed to the best of their ability. It has not escaped me, however, that the number of XL bully breed-type dogs in Northern Ireland could very well be under-reported. Unfortunately, I cannot rule out the possibility that the significant uplift in the number of XL bully dogs finding a home here is due to their displacement from England, Scotland and Wales. I understand that well-intentioned individuals and organisations have expressed a desire to rehome the dogs, which, they feel, might otherwise be abandoned. However, there is no way of determining whether those dogs have been appropriately trained and socialised or have demonstrated aggressive behaviours in the past. I do not wish to scaremonger. I will remain grounded in the facts. The overall population of such dogs remains low, especially in comparison with other parts of the UK. However, I am conscious of our capacity in Northern Ireland to receive unwanted dogs, and I do not want to expose the public to an exacerbated level of risk. I have been advised that 140 XL bully dogs are licensed right now, which is up from around 90 last October. Therefore, it is time to act while numbers remain manageable and we can, in the main, track where the dogs are. I reassure Members and the people of Northern Ireland that I have not rushed into a decision. I have carefully considered all aspects of the matter, and I have not taken it lightly. I am also aware that I cannot delay action any further. Northern Ireland has, sadly, not been immune to attacks by XL bully breed-type dogs. Many Members will be aware of the public case in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area in which a man suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of one such dog. None of us wants to hear about another attack like that. The public safety of the people of Northern Ireland is my utmost concern, so today I am announcing the introduction of new safeguards surrounding XL bully breed-type dogs in Northern Ireland. I will lay legislation before the House that will require the owners of XL bully breed-type dogs to take measures when their dog is in public. I will introduce a scheme that will require owners to appropriately record and account for their dog with the relevant authorities. Owners will be required to keep their dog on the lead at all times in a public place and ensure that the dog is muzzled. Their XL bully breed-type dog will also be neutered, and breeding from the dog will be prohibited.

I also advise that, once the legislation is made, it will no longer be permissible to sell, abandon or give away an XL bully breed-type dog. My Department will provide further detail on those safeguards and the dates when they will come into effect in due course.

Following my announcement today, I will write to the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, with my officials writing to all local councils to inform them of my decision. I recognise that this decision will have a definitive impact on the dog warden service. I would like to use the expertise and experience of our councils and their dog wardens in particular, who are well versed in the right and proper ways to deal with dangerous dogs and dog control measures, so, with that in mind, I intend to establish a working group containing representatives from my Department and key council staff to design and implement an exemption scheme that is as straightforward as the legislation can permit. Let me reassure the owners and advocates of the XL bully breed-type dogs: I am committed to providing you with the right information and the necessary space to make informed decisions about your dog ownership. However, if the owner of an XL bully breed-type dog does not wish to adhere to these measures and no longer wishes to keep their dog, provision will be made for them to surrender that dog, and their dog will be euthanised. No owner will be forced to give their dog up or made to hand over their dog. I am giving the owners of XL bully breed-type dogs the ability to be responsible and compassionate owners, which, I know, many are. I am offering them a pathway to enduring and lasting ownership of their valued dog. Only the owners of the dogs will determine what happens. My officials will now work at pace on the necessary legislation, as well as the scheme to register and record XL bully breed-type dogs. Given my announcement today, I urge prospective owners of XL bully breed-type dogs to seriously bear in mind the need to adhere to the new safeguards. This is an appeal to those people: if you are minded to acquire an XL bully breed-type dog and currently do not own one, you need to know that the laws and your obligations will change. I appreciate that there will be a thirst for more information. My Department will develop guidance and practical support to allow owners to understand the impending legislative changes, including how to identify an XL bully breed-type dog using the standard developed by the UK Government. I realise that there will be dog owners and stakeholders in our community who feel that I have valued their views less than the views of others: that is not the case. In the longer term, I have a desire to explore the possibility of meaningful reform to our dog control laws in close cooperation with key stakeholders in the sector. I am acutely aware of the calls to deal with the deed, not the breed, and criticism of breed-specific legislation, but, as Minister, I am left with the situation as it presents itself and the legislation as currently available in the context of public safety risks. I say to those listening to me today who wish to shape the future: please work with me to enhance our legislation and put in place initiatives that eradicate the irresponsible practices and ownership that have created the conditions that I am now trying to put right. I am, however, faced with the situation and the reality of today. Safeguarding measures must be implemented for the safety and protection of the public.

I thank the Member for his question. In the weeks ahead, my officials will engage with councils to plan for the operational delivery of what I have proposed. I acknowledge that that will involve additional work for councils. In the weeks ahead, my Department will engage with them through the working group so that we can advance the development of the scheme. I am conscious of the financial pressures that are associated with district councils. The budget settlement that I receive for the next financial year will be key to what my Department can achieve when it comes to working with councils and what they can do and general animal welfare issues. It is critical that I outline that, because the budget that I receive next year will be instrumental in determining what more we can do as a House and a Government on animal welfare.

On inheriting the Department, I was made aware of that issue and the budget challenges that the permanent secretary was managing in-year. I am keen to look at how we can invest in animal welfare and work with district councils to support them. The most fundamental issue will be how much money my Department is awarded for the next financial year. That will determine the way forward. I recognise that the decision will provide challenges for many. Taking the decision has provided challenges for me, but, most importantly, it will provide challenges for rehoming centres, stakeholders and district councils. I am keen to do whatever I can to support them within the budget that I have for next year.

I thank the Member for her question. As part of the work in the time ahead, we will engage with relevant stakeholders, including the ones that she mentioned, because I am aware that, on the road to implementation, we will need to engage with different stakeholders in society. I look forward to continuing our engagement with the people whom she mentioned.

I would be delighted to attend a meeting of the all-party group. It is important that, as Minister, I engage with the relevant all-party groups, as well as the stakeholders and statutory bodies, as outlined by Member McIlveen. It is important to state — I will put it on the record again — that I am not taking the decision in isolation. It is my strong desire that we do not just bring animal welfare legislation up to speed — we have fallen behind compared with the rest of the UK and Ireland — but become an exemplar to others. Realistically, it will take around 18 months to enact primary legislation. I am dealing with the situation that presents itself now. It is my desire, during this mandate, that we bring animal welfare legislation up to speed and become a role model for others across the UK and Ireland. I look forward to engaging with the all-party group to see how we can achieve that, because converting policy proposals into legislation can be a challenge. I look forward to the discussion on that.

I thank the Member for his question. He is right that there is no perfect solution and that the measures will largely deal with public settings rather than the home. That speaks to the point that I made about the legislation that we have at the moment. I am sitting here as Minister in week five of the job. The tools presented to me in terms of legislation are all that I have access to, so I am working with what I have. I have a desire to look at legislation in the longer term to see how we can make the situation on the issue here fit for purpose. We are all aware of the stories, not just the fatalities but people who have had life-changing injuries as a result of this. That causes me real apprehension and concern. As Minister, I honestly did not feel that I could take no decision on this or take no action. I could not live with myself if I did that.

I engaged with Minister Humphreys this morning. This is an example of where we need to get the North/South institutions up and running and to work North/South and east-west on these matters. The fact that the institutions did not sit for two years has set us back in relation to that. The legislation in the South differs from that in the North. The South has provision for a restricted dogs list, and, as part of that, restricted dogs must be muzzled, on a:

"strong chain or leash, not exceeding two metres in length"

and must be handled by a competent person over 16 years of age. Ms Humphreys announced at the end of last year that she would undertake a review of that and of an increase in fines, so this is under active consideration as part of that. This issue is not unique to Northern Ireland. The research that I have done in recent days shows that this is a global issue that challenges Governments across Europe and beyond.

The requirements will include a requirement to obtain public liability insurance. From the figures on the roll-out of the scheme in England and Wales, I understand that 56,000 exemption certificates have been applied for but only 300 people have given up their animals. That gives the context of how that scheme is going. I reiterate the point that Alan Chambers outlined: no perfect solution to this is available to me. All that I am doing is using what is available to me now.

I thank the Member for his question. I have been engaging with officials over the last four weeks on a range of areas, including animal welfare and this matter. I will engage with officials again later this week on priorities for policy and legislation in this area. I desire to use secondary and primary legislation to update animal welfare provisions in Northern Ireland. It is important that I set that out as a key priority. The statement does not distract from that. As Minister, in making this decision, I have, I believe, balanced and put at the forefront the issues of public safety and animal welfare. There are many responsible owners of XL bully breed-type dogs, and it is important that I state that. However, it is not lost on me that I have seen examples of people who have acquired a dog and, frankly, abused it for their own gratification and as a reflection of power. It is a disgrace that anyone would use an animal for their own gratification and desire for control in their community. We need to call time on that.

I thank the Member for her question. She is right in stating that issue. There are probably two aspects to her question. One is the attacks on other dogs. A Member brought concerns to me about another dog that was killed by an XL bully breed-type dog while the person was out walking the dog. It caused real trauma for the family associated with that dog. The other issue relates to livestock worrying. BBC Radio Ulster's 'Countryside' programme at the weekend highlighted concerns around livestock worrying and the impact that that can have on farming businesses and livestock. I am quite keen to explore with officials what more we can do to deal with that issue. There are enforcement powers, but there are issues with education as well. When it comes to farms that are closer to urban areas, people may not understand the need to ensure that their dog is kept under control. It is something that I am concerned about, and I thank those behind the programme on the radio at the weekend for highlighting those issues.

I thank the Member for his question. As I outlined in the statement, we will seek to use the definition that was adopted by the UK Government. A working group was set up by DEFRA on that matter. I acknowledge that the fact that I am making an announcement and bringing in enhanced restrictions will cause concern for people. I ask people to give us time to publish guidance and to give clarification on that, because our desire is to do so. It is not a decision that I have rushed into, and I am conscious that, as you said, there are very many responsible owners. Let us be clear: for the overwhelming majority of owners, it will not cause a problem because there will be a road to applying for an exemption certificate. We will be able to ensure that those dogs will continue to be loved and cared for while we safeguard the public.

I thank the Member for her question. I looked through many different options, particularly in relation to the legislation that was presented to me. I looked at what flexibilities would be associated with that, at what options other than euthanasia may exist if the owner decided that they did not wish to apply for an exemption certificate and at whether we could give assistance in rehoming dogs. That was not possible. I honestly and genuinely feel that I can say to the House that I fully explored all options that were available to me in relation to the issue. The decision that I have announced is, to me, the only viable option with which I can proceed. I know that it will cause apprehension and concern for not only owners of the dogs concerned but stakeholders. I get that, and I fully appreciate that. All that I ask for is recognition that I have made the decision in full cognisance of the facts and of the need to take a decision on the matter. Frankly, I took this job not because I thought that it was easy but because I knew that it was hard.

I thank the Member for his question. Under the exemption scheme, the individual owner will apply for a certificate of exemption. A number of conditions will be associated with that. The animal will need to be neutered. It will need to be kept on a leash and muzzled in public. There will also need to be public liability insurance. The animal will need to be kept in secure conditions. The owner must also inform authorities of any change in address, and there will be wider requirements about not selling, exchanging or giving away the animal. I will outline the licensing scheme that we have in Northern Ireland. We are unique in that we continue to have that scheme for dogs in Northern Ireland. I think that that is a good thing. Other parts of the UK do not have that. However, there is a risk that not everyone licenses their dog. Hopefully, today is an opportunity to remind people of the requirement to license their dog. Some queries may arise as to the cost of the certificate of exemption. We will have to set a price, but we do not intend to generate a profit from the cost of that certificate. The fee that is charged in England is £92·40. We want to work genuinely with district councils on the roll-out of the certificate, because it is primarily district councils that will administer the scheme. I hope that that answers the Member's question.

On the question of engagement with the RSPCA and the USPCA, I spoke to the USPCA before I made the statement. I am conscious that it does not agree with my position on the ban. However, as Minister, I have to take decisions in the round and to be conscious of public safety. I have made clear my genuine desire to continue to engage with the USPCA and other organisations so that we can shape much better, fit-for-purpose legislation around animal welfare. I understand and have a lot of respect for the genuinely held position that the USPCA takes and what it advocates for. On the issue of more XL bully-type dogs coming to Northern Ireland, the decision that I have announced today sends out a clear message that restrictions will be put in place in Northern Ireland. It is important that I do that. If l left it any longer, the risk of more animals coming into Northern Ireland would increase greatly. The decision that I have announced today will, hopefully, provide a clear message and deterrent to anyone who is thinking of coming to Northern Ireland with a dog: enhanced restrictions will be in place to safeguard the welfare of the animal but also the public.

I thank the Member for his questions. I am conscious of the judicial review in England and the issues associated with it. I am also cognisant of the public safety risk and the need to act swiftly. There will be two negative statutory rules. The desire is that we will lay the first one in April or May; that the second one, which will cover the compensation scheme, will be laid thereafter; and that we will have the scheme operational this summer.

I thank the Member for his question. I do not seek to gaslight any breed; I seek to be driven by the evidence to safeguard the public. There is a wider message, which applies to people's responsibility as dog owners, to ensure that their dogs are kept under control so that the public remain safe. The message that I send today is that this is not unique to just one breed; there is a wider issue here. I will say, however, that the overwhelming majority of dog owners are responsible, caring and considerate of other people. That is the message that we need to send very clearly. Whatever funding my Department receives will allow us to do education work on the responsible ownership that the Member alluded to. It is key that we focus on that, because anything that we do, as a Government, should always be focused on raising awareness around issues like this.

I thank the Member for her question. I will continue to engage with district councils on that. I am aware of the financial challenges that they and my Department face. It is key that we find a way forward on the matter.

I thank the Member for his question and for his detailed understanding of Alliance Party policy. I do not agree that it is in contravention of Alliance Party policy. When one takes up ministerial office, one's duty, first and foremost, is to safeguard the public and not to play party politics with such things. Penalties are laid out in the proposed legislation, and, hopefully, we will not have to resort to them.

4,405 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.98
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification