New government plans, revealed this week, continue to baffle me in their highly prejudiced approach to responsible dog ownership in the UK.
On Tuesday 9th June, it was confirmed that the updated measures will safeguard children from dangerous dogs in the home and reinforce protections against prohibited breeds, including XL Bully types.
From November 1, 2026, owners will be prohibited from leaving a child under the age of 12 in close proximity to a banned breed dog in a domestic setting or other private settings without adult supervision. This will form a condition of the Certificate of Exemption, which permits owners to legally keep a banned breed.
The new safeguard is intended to reduce the likelihood of serious injury to children in domestic environments. It will also allow exempted dogs to ‘remain with families where appropriate supervision is in place’.
Whether you are a supporter or an opposer of the ban, the bigger issue screaming at me is why we are even discussing which breeds should be unsupervised with children regardless.
In my opinion, NO dog should be left unsupervised with children.
No responsible dog owner would argue against protecting children. In fact, most experts agree that young children should be supervised around dogs of any breed. Children can unintentionally provoke dogs, misread warning signs, or behave unpredictably. Equally, dogs can become stressed, frightened, or protective in situations adults might not anticipate.
The issue is not whether supervision is sensible. The issue is why the law would require it only for certain breeds.
Safety Should Apply to All Dogs
If the proposal is based on the principle that children should not be left alone with dogs, then it is difficult to understand why the rule would be limited to breeds covered by existing legislation.
Dog bites and dog-related injuries involve a wide range of breeds. While some incidents involving larger dogs understandably receive significant media attention, the reality is that any dog can bite under the wrong circumstances.
In fact, research shows that the most common breeds for dog bites are the Labrador, French Bulldog, Border Collie and the Cocker Spaniel.
A child pulling a dog’s ears, disturbing it while eating, or invading its personal space can create risk regardless of whether the dog is a banned breed, a family Labrador, a Spaniel, or a Terrier.
If supervision is genuinely a child-safety issue, should it not be encouraged across all breeds rather than imposed selectively?
Focusing on Behaviour Rather Than Breed
Not only does the proposal highlight the continuous assumption that these dogs remain uniquely dangerous regardless of responsible ownership, compliance with exemptions rules, individual history and temperament but it also highlights the broader issue within breed-specific legislation: the tendency to focus on what a dog IS rather than how a dog behaves, which has ALWAYS been the problem with BSL.
A well-socialised, well-trained dog with no history of aggression may face restrictions simply because of its breed classification. Meanwhile, dogs of other breeds that have demonstrated problematic behaviour may not be subject to the same requirements.
Many critics (including myself) argue that public safety would be better served by stronger enforcement against irresponsible ownership, improved education on dog behaviour, and interventions based on a dog’s actions rather than its appearance.
Protecting Children Without Creating Double Standards
Protecting children should always be a priority. Few people would disagree with advice encouraging adults to supervise interactions between children and dogs.
However, turning that advice into a legal requirement for only a small group of breeds risks creating a double standard.
If the principle is that young children should not be left unsupervised with dogs, then the conversation should be about child safety generally. If the principle is that only certain breeds pose a unique risk, then policymakers must demonstrate why responsible owners and well-behaved dogs should be treated differently despite years of compliance and safe behaviour.
The proposal may be well-intentioned, but good intentions do not automatically make good policy. Effective legislation should be evidence-based, practical, and consistent and involve consultation with a cohort of professionals with direct experience in the field. Whether this proposal meets those standards remains an open question.
